Christ as our Sin-Bearer is not the RCC gospel.

[guanophore]

The RCC does not believe that Jesus Christ took upon Himself our sins on the Cross as the Sin-Bearer.
The RCC does not believe that Christ paid the penalty for those sins He bore upon Himself as the Substitute for us, so that He could redeem us.

The Scripture that I will use to define Jesus Christ as the Sin-Bearer can be found in (1 Peter 2:24-25):
“Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.”

Please explain exactly how you understand (1 Peter 2:24-25), if you do not accept that Jesus Christ is our Sin-Bearer Redeemer?

I believe that you must believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ as our Substitute Sin-Bearer Redeemer, if you are to be saved. There is no other way to salvation.

brkn, the NT was written by Catholics, for Catholics. there is nothing in it that is not Catholic.

Therefore, please post the Catholic teaching that appears in your mind to be different from
what is written in the All Catholic New Testament.

I got my understanding from reading what Catholics on this forum believe about “Penal Substitution”.

I would like to get a clear explanation from some Catholics about exactly how Jesus Christ was the Sin-Bearer during His Sacrifice on the Cross. They seem to want to be indirect in their answers, which indicates that they might not know or believe that Jesus was a believing sinner’s Substitute Redeemer that paid the full sin-penalty for those given by God to believe in Christ’s Sacrificial Work of Redemption, according to the Gospel.

If this were true, why did you post your question on the NC religions forum? If you want to know what Catholics think, Apologetics is more likely to get you the answer you need.

“Penal Substitution” is a term coined by the Reformers 1500 years after the fact.

Perhaps you could clearly explain the answer to my question, instead of calling me “ingnorant”. Thanks.

Actually, you made several “ignorant” statements/assertions and did not really ask an answerable question.

You asked “if you don’t believe” then listed a Scripture. Of course Catholics believe all that is written in Scripture, therefore, it is not possible to answer that question.

 

[guanophore]

The Gospels were not given to us by the CC. They were given to us by God in Christ.

Both things are true, Richard. God gave them through the CC.

What does your baseless detraction have to do with the topic?

If He died once for all as it says in Heb10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Why does the CC insist on offering Him over and over again in their so-called sacrifice of the eucharist?

Richard, it appears that you are attempting to derail this thread. You also appear to be misinformed about the Catholic Mass. I suggest, if there is really any shred of sincerity in this question (which I doubt), that you post it over in apologetics.

You say “We offer Him over and over again precisely because He is the one acceptable sacrifice that you acknowledge Him to be.” You seem to be useing offering and sacrifice interchangably. But then you say. “We do not sacrifice Him over and over again.”
I would ask that you provide some clarification as to your perception of the difference between an offering and a sacrifice?

Your question about the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a fine one, but off topic in this thread. Search CAF for this topic, or start a new thread (over in Apologetics). We get this misunderstanding a lot around here.

 

[guanophore]

Paragraph 603 says:“Jesus did not experience reprobation as if He Himself had sinned.”
If “Jesus did not experience reprobation” in our place, then there can be no reason for sin to be placed upon Him. Without Jesus being punished by the Father, as if He was actually a sinner as we are, there can be no claim that God’s justice against our sin was payed for by Jesus. Jesus being given into the hands of sinners to die will not pay the redemption price commanded in Scripture.

Glad you are reading the catechism, brkn1.

He bore in his body our sins to the cross. He is spotless, and He is God, and is not a reprobate. He is the lamb without spot or blemish that was sacrificed for our sins. The spotless lamb was not treated like tainted thing. It was sacrificed BECAUSE it was pure and without blemish.

It had to be an infinitely perfect and innocent Substitute to bear our sins upon Himself and then suffer, in our place, the full penalty required by God’s Perfect Justice. Jesus voluntarily took upon Himself the penalty of all who would believe in His one Perfect Sacrifice on the Cross. Everything in both the Old and New Testament pointed to Jesus as the Sacrificial Lamb of God, Who would die in our place to pay God’s required penalty (price) for our sin. That is what a Redeemer does for those He loves.

The notions of Penal Substitution are modern Fundamentalist ideas, which is why they are not found in Catholic Doctrine, which comes to us from the Apostles.

The Catholic Church (which is not “Roman” by the way) believes and teaches that Jesus paid the price for our sins by His death on the cross. However, the Apostles did not use the language of “penal substitution”.

Certainly, the wages of sin is death. But wouldn’t the “full penalty” be eternal separation from God? Basically damnation?

This is a bona fide question…that’s where I’m having trouble understanding where you’re coming from.:banghead:

This is exactly right. Those that teach the “penal substitution” concept also teach that God “turned His back” on Jesus at the cross, and that is how they understand His words “my God, my God, why have you forsaken me”. However, since the doctrine of the Trinity prevents this, such an innovation is erroneous.

The price of paying for our sin required more than Jesus just giving up His life for us. Our eternal punishment would be more than just physically dying on our part, if we are not saved in graced faith of believing that Jesus payed the full deserved price in our place.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here, but I think we are in agreement that, had Christ paid the full deserved price for our sins, eternal separation from God would have occurred. Since it did not, this is why we do not use the language of “penal substitution”. I also think we are in agreement that it is a mystery how He paid the price, but that He did.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ must be the correct gospel, or it becomes “another gospel”, which Paul condemned.
There are many things of God that we can not fully grasp, such as the miracle of Jesus being both God and Man, but we must still accept what Scripture gives us to understand about it.
The only way that our sin could be payed for, is if Jesus paid our penalty in full on the Cross. It is all of Grace, even the part where the Holy Spirit brings us into the saving faith of Christ’ Redeeming Sacrifice and Resurrection.

Yes, this is quite true. This is why Modern American Fundamentalism, and the notion of “penal substitution” is considered “a different gospel”. It requires a concept of the Trinity that is not consistent with what the Aposltes taught.

If you truly believe that Jesus Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross as our Sin-Bearer payed the ransom price for our sins, then why does a believer in that “expiation for our sins” (604) still have to merit his own justification? The Sin-Bearer already paid the believer’s ransom price in full.

I think you are misunderstanding the use of the term “merit” here. To merit means to be made worthy (as opposed to just being declared justified) The Apostles taught that we are to do deeds that befit repentance.

Jesus’ wounds are the proof of His one Sacrifice. Jesus died only once as Paul pointed out in Hebrews. Jesus said “It is finished.”

He was speaking of the fourth cup of the Passover. That is probably beyond the scope of this thread. However, we are in agreement that Jesus’ once for all sacrifice of HImself on the cross is the expiation for our sins.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

The existence of the Mass
Before dealing with the proofs of revelation afforded by the Bible and tradition, certain preliminary points must first be decided. Of these the most important is that the Church intends the Mass to be regarded as a “true and proper sacrifice”, and will not tolerate the idea that the sacrifice is identical with Holy Communion. That is the sense of a clause from the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, can. 1): “If any one saith that in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema” (Denzinger, “Enchir.”, 10th ed. 1908, n. 948). When Leo XIII in the dogmatic Bull “Apostolicae Curae” of 13 Sept., 1896, based the invalidity of the Anglican form of consecration on the fact among others, that in the consecrating formula of Edward VI (that is, since 1549) there is nowhere an unambiguous declaration regarding the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Anglican archbishops answered with some irritation: “First, we offer the Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; next, we plead and represent before the Father the Sacrifice of the Cross . . . and, lastly, we offer the Sacrifice of ourselves to the Creator of all things, which we have already signified by the oblation of His creatures. This whole action, in which the people has necessarily to take part with the priest, we are accustomed to call the communion, the Eucharistic Sacrifice”. In regard to this last contention, Bishop Hedley of Newport declared his belief that not one Anglican in a thousand is accustomed to call the communion the “Eucharistic Sacrifice.” But even if they were all so accustomed, they would have to interpret the terms in the sense of the thirty-nine Articles, which deny both the Real Presence and the sacrifical power of the priest, and thus admit a sacrifice in an unreal or figurative sense only. Leo XIII, on the other hand, in union with the whole Christian past, had in mind in the above-mentioned Bull nothing else than the Eucharistic “Sacrifice of the true Body and Blood of Christ” on the altar. This Sacrifice is certainly not identical with the Anglican form of celebration.

The simple fact that numerous heretics, such as Wyclif and Luther, repudiated the Mass as “idolatry”, while retaining the Sacrament of the true Body and Blood of Christ, proves that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is something essentially different from the Sacrifice of the Mass. In truth, the Eucharist performs at once two functions: that of a sacrament and that of a sacrifice. Though the inseparableness of the two is most clearly seen in the fact that the consecrating sacrificial powers of the priest coincide, and consequently that the sacrament is produced only in and through the Mass, the real difference between them is shown in that the sacrament is intended privately for the sanctification of the soul, whereas the sacrifice serves primarily to glorify God by adoration, thanksgiving, prayer, and expiation. The recipient of the one is God, who receives the sacrifice of His only-begotten Son; of the other, man, who receives the sacrament for his own good. Furthermore, the unbloody Sacrifice of the Eucharistic Christ is in its nature a transient action, while the Sacrament of the Altar continues as something permanent after the sacrifice, and can even be preserved in monstrance and ciborium. Finally, this difference also deserves mention: communion under one form only is the reception of the whole sacrament, whereas, without the use of the two forms of bread and wine (the symbolic separation of the Body and Blood), the mystical slaying of the victim, and therefore the Sacrifice of the Mass, does not take place.
The definition of the Council of Trent supposes as self-evident the proposition that, along with the “true and real Sacrifice of the Mass”, there can be and are in Christendom figurative and unreal sacrifices of various kinds, such as prayers of praise and thanksgiving, alms, mortification, obedience, and works of penance. Such offerings are often referred to in Holy Scripture, e.g. in Ecclesiasticus 35:4: “All he that doth mercy offereth sacrifice”; and in Psalm 140:2: “Let my prayer be directed as incense in thy sight, the lifting up of my hands as evening sacrifice.” These figurative offerings, however, necessarily presuppose the real and true offering, just as a picture presupposes its subject and a portrait its original. The Biblical metaphors – a “sacrifice of jubilation” (Ps. xxvi, 6), the "calves of our lips (Hosea 14:3), the “sacrifice of praise” (Hebrews 13:15) – expressions which apply sacrificial terms to sacrifice (hostia, thysia). That there was such a sacrifice, the whole sacrificial system of the Old Law bears witness. It is true that we may and must recognize with St. Thomas (II-II:85:3), as the principale sacrificium the sacrificial intent which, embodied in the spirit of prayer, inspires and animates the external offerings as the body animates the soul, and without which even the most perfect offering has neither worth nor effect before God. Hence, the holy psalmist says: “For if thou hadst desired sacrifice, I would indeed have given it: with burnt-offerings thou wilt not be delighted. A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit” (Ps. I, 18 sq.). This indispensable requirement of an internal sacrifice, however, by no means makes the external sacrifice superfluous in Christianity; indeed, without a perpetual oblation deriving its value from the sacrifice once offered on the Cross, Christianity, the perfect religion, would be inferior not only to the Old Testament, but even to the poorest form of natural religion. Since sacrifice is thus essential to religion, it is all the more necessary for Christianity, which cannot otherwise fulfil its duty of showing outward honour to God in the most perfect way.

 

[guanophore]

The RCC uses the terms ‘Sin Bearer’ and ‘Redeemer’ because Scripture clearly describes Jesus Christ as a believer’s Sin-Bearing Redeemer. The use of those terms does not prove that the RCC truly accepts the meaning of them.

I have not ever seen the CC using the term “Sin Bearer”, but I admit that I have not experienced all things Catholic. What is most certain is that the Catholic Church infuses that language with the meanings that were passed down to us from the Apostles, not those imputed to the terms by Modern American Fundamentalists who have departed from the Apostolic Succession.

The RCC does not accept that Jesus Christ paid the full price for a believer’s sin as a Sin-Bearer, since they consider Christ’s one Sacrifice as an offering that ‘enables’ us to effectively ‘work out our own salvation’ by the grace provided for our own merits in some sort of co-operative process.

This is a false statement, brkn1. On the contrary, the only reason that we are privileged to participate in working out our salvation is because of Jesus once for all full payment price for our sins on the cross.

Even “merit” (in Gk. called “reward”) only can be attained through grace, by faith.
It is His merit that is applied to us that enables us to benefit anything.

Jesus could not honestly be said to have paid the full ransom price for our sins, if we also have to add our works to the ransom price ‘in co-operation’ etc.

This statement reflects a lack of understanding of the relationship between faith and works in salvation. We are saved by grace for the purpose of works. they are not “added”, they are part and parcel of the grace by which we are saved through faith. Instead of reading Eph. 2:8-9 and stopping there, go on and read v. 10.

**

That would make Jesus only a partial Redeemer, since He could then be said to have not finished the job of paying the full ransom price.**

Yes, it would, which is why what you are saying about Catholicism is false.

brkn1:

Jesus Christ, as the only Sin-Bearer Redeemer, payed the full price for a believer’s sin “by Himself”.

And we are joined to Him in His death, so that we can participate in His Divine life. we become partakers of His grace, and we manifest His life within us by expressing His grace in our daily life by loving acts.

Your post seems to claim that Jesus is a Sin-Bearer in name only.
The essence of the simple Gospel is that Jesus paid our deserved penalty by taking our place as a vicarious Substitute, Who suffered the Father’s wrath for our sin. If Jesus Christ only died as a sacrifice, in the same manner as Issac’s sacrifice would have been, then a believer is not redeemed by that sacrifice. The price for our sin is not simply physical death or all would be redeemed by their own death.
The truth of the Gospel is not a “linguistic venture”.

The invention of the concept of “vicarious substitute” belongs to Modern American Fundamentalism. So is the concept of penal satisfaction of Gods wrath. These concepts are not part of the Apostolic Teaching, however, I do see how they can be extrapolated form reading the Scripture, especially if one does so in the vacuum created by separation from Apostolic Succession.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Please go to www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm-260k

You will find most of your questions: sometimes when we read things they are never realy saying what we think they are saying. Love Nancy

 

[guanophore]

The logical conclusion, that must come from these statements, is that WE performed (as a work) the unjust acts that allowed God to save us from our sin. It could then no longer be said that Jesus, “by Himself”, purged us from our sin. We are critical (although unjust) players in the the act of redemption.

Something is seriously broken in your logic, brkn1. It is true that we performed the unjust acts that resulted in the need for a redeemer, but nothing that we can do, or not do “allows” anything for God. He chose, out of love, to redeem us from our lost condition.

You are right, though, if your broken logic were applied this way, it would be true that Jesus did not, by Himself, purge us from sin. Good thing this only exists in your mind!

 

[rtconstant]

You are so good!:yup: And you are Loved Nancy

Thank you, you are to kind.

 

[guanophore]

The existence of the Mass…

It is great to hear that you have returned to your Catholic faith. I am also glad you decided to stay at CAF, because I think you will learn a lot here. As for this post, it is against the forum rules to post excerpts like this without there reference. Please post the link so everyone will know where you got the material, or the name of the book.

 

[guanophore]

“Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by Whose stripes ye were healed.” (1 Peter 2:24)
Our sins are explained as being bore “in His body” by Jesus’ “own self”.

This is Catholic.

Only a vicarious Substitute Sin-Bearer could do that.

This is a modern Fundamentalist innovation based upon erroneous soteriology. You will not find it anywhere in scripture, or in Apostolic Teaching, or anywhere in the history of Christendom.

As our Sin-Bearer, Jesus “hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust,…” (1 Peter 3:18). This is explaining the Gospel further as to what Jesus had to do with those sins of ours placed upon Him “in His own body on the tree”.

“For He (the Father) hath made Him (Jesus) to be sin for us, Who (Jesus) knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him (Jesus)”. (2 Corinthians 5;21)
This verse should be obvious as vicarious substitution, as does: “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us:” (Galatians 3:13)

It is certainly obvious that you understand it that way. We understand the Scriptures in the light of what the Apostles taught, so we understand it differently.

See (Isaiah 53:5-6) for some Old Testament verification, where the Ethiopian eunuch was reading from, as he asked the meaning of the Gospel from Phillip.

Yes, this is an awesome passage that was understood by the Apostles to apply to Jesus. None of it, however, confirms the Modern American Fundamentalist notion of penal substitution.

How would that make a difference in our ‘player’ role as that ‘gospel’ is described. It would still make man a worker (although unjust) in his own salvation.

No, brkn1, your perceptions are broken. We participate in our salvation by working out what God has wrought within us. It is our spiritual worship to offer ourselves to Him.

Eph 1:15-20

15 For this reason,…that you may know …what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power in us who believe, according to the working of his great might 20 which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead …

It is the working of His great might within us who believe that accomplishes our sanctification.

There would be no need for Jesus to be a Sin-Bearer, if there was no substitutionary punishment.

This is your erroneous conclusion, based upon your erroneous premise. On the contrary, Jesus can save whomever He wants, however He likes. He chose to bear our sins upon His body to the cross.

Jesus suffered tremendous physical suffering, humiliation, and eventual physical death at the hand of man.

This much is Catholic.

Jesus suffered spiritual death for a time at the hand of the Father. This was during the time of darkness, when the transaction was only between the Father and His Son Jesus.  The details are hidden to us and our finite minds, but we know that this was when the real payment was being made to satisfy God's Holiness and Justice.

This much is heresy. I don’t mean to sound rude in saying this, because I think the folks that cooked this up are completely sincere, and have no idea how far they have departed from the Apostolic Teaching in this formulation. Neither are those who embrace it properly called heretics, since they were never taught the truth in the first place. It is a modern evangelical error that people embrace with all sincerity. I used to do it myself!

Jesus’ cry in agony, “My God, My God why hast Thou forsaken Me?” shows how infinitely awful this part of Jesus’ suffering was. This was the time when God the father had to turn from His Son who was bearing the sins of the entire human race.

Yes for the agony, no for the turning.

What happened during that time was sufficient to pay for an infinite number of human eternal damnations. It was more than adequate to pay the required price and satisfy God’s Holy Justice. Jesus paid it all. Those given by God to believe and accept that gift of God’s Redemption are born into God’s family and thereby saved eternally.

I agree that what happened on the cross was sufficient to pay for all of humanities sins. However, this did not happen to satisfy the wrath of an angry God. We agree that His death on the cross saves us from our sins. It is what we believe happened there that we disagree about. Catholics receive the Apostolic Teaching on the Trinity, so we know that the Father cannot turn away from the Son, or visit wrath upon Him. This represents a carnal, small minded human perspective of God that is defiicent.

 

[guanophore]

The victim animal could not and was not giving its obedience in the ritual sacrifices. The animals were only symbolically bearing sin, pointing to the future Messiah Who would actually bear our sin. Paul explained that the shed blood of those animals could never remit sins. It was the saving faith in the coming Messiah represented by those sacrificed animals that saved ‘on credit’ those required, at that time, to obey in faith the Jewish animal sacrifices. The animal shedding of blood saved no one, but Jesus’ promised shed Blood did. To equate Jesus’ Sacrifice as being, in any form, on the same level as the animal sacrifice is to miss the point altogether.

I agree, however, it would equally miss the point if we do not see in this sacrificial system the type and shadow of Christ’s once for all sacrifice. God was showing the Jews an eternal truth. He used this method to help them understand what the Messiah would do. The sacrificed animals did not act as a vicarious substitutionary presence.

. Eternal spiritual death (separation from God) will be the worst part of Hell for the damned. Jesus’ did not have to suffer eternal spiritual death, when He suffered in our place as the Sin-Bearer.

This is the primary reason that the Catholic Church does not accept the language of substitutionary. If it were, then He would have. This is also the only manner in which He did not take upon Himself the penalty for our sins. His offering was complete and efficacious, even though He did not suffer eternal spiritual death, which is what we all deserve for our sins.

He did have to experience a time of it, before it was finished. value of that time was infinitely more than equal to what all mankind’s penalty would be. That temporary separation was the worst part of His sufferings. He had/has never experienced any separation before or after that time on the Cross.

This is the second reason that the doctrine misses the mark. It is taught that there was some separation between the Father and the Son when Jesus was on the cross. this is an error. Basically, it boils down to misunderstanding His words as they are recorded in the Gospels. These types of misunderstandings are not uncommon when people read the Scripture separated from the Apostolic Teaching.

His prior realization that this would be what was to happen was what caused Him to be “sore amazed” and in sorrow while praying in the Garden. The perspiring of blood was not the result of fear of any physical pain etc that some say. The love between the Father and Son is so perfectly infinite, that any even temporary separation is worse than all physical and emotional pain that an infinite number of humans could suffer.

I am sure this would be true, but since it is impossible, it kinda shoots the whole soteriological theory into the garbage.

Jesus was not “play-acting on our part”, as your Catechism seems to imply, when He said, “My God, My God, Why hast Thou forsaken Me?”. Jesus meant every word of that cry in agony for Himself.

No, the Catechism is not implying that he was “play acting”. It was common practice to use the first one or two lines of a psalm when referring to the whole psalm. Remember, the Psalms were not numbered until the Catholic Church added numbers and verses to the scriptures in the middle ages. All passages were located by their openings. Jesus was indicating that the words of the Psalm applied to Him. Your understanding of what “forsaken” means,however, is a violation of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Why did Jesus beg the Father to let the cup pass from Him? To say that it was just because of a natural human aversion or His “horror that death represented for His human nature”(612) is to cheapen and insult the courage and voluntary suffering of our Perfect Redeemer.

Well, we don’t think so . It is a natural human element to preserve our own lives. Of course He took the suffering voluntarily and courageously. That does not mean He was separated from the other members of the Trinity at any time.

This insults the infinite love of the Father for His Son. If a simple blow to the face was sufficient to satisfy God’s perfect Holiness and Justice, then an infinitely loving Father would have gladly found another way to bypass the cup, as Jesus requested.

Actually, I think it is more insulting to the infinite love of the Father to say that punishing the innocent Son to extract justice and satisfy wrath is loving. Would you punish your son for the wrongdoing of another? How would that be loving? Even if your son volunteered to take the punishment?

The ransom and penal substitution are the same thing. Jesus paid the required ransom price in our place. He took our place and suffered God’s wrath that we deserved. Receiving God’s gift of true faith in what Jesus did for us, as our Substitute, is what saves us. The Gospel is that simple.

No, ransom and penal substitution are NOT the same thing. If someone else pays my penalty, then they go to prison instead of me. Jesus did not go to eternal punishment in my place.

If you use your common sense, you will realize that very few ransoms call for one person to be substituted for the hostage. In almost all cases, some other ransom is demanded.

The error here is in the notion of wrath and punishment. I understand where you get it, but it is not Apostolic.

I agree,though, receiving Gods gift of salvation means having faith that he died for our sins.
Our disagreement is in how the ransom occurred.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t belong to a “sect”. I belong to the Anglican Church in North America which is an emerging Province of the worldwide Anglican Communion. And no we don’t ordain Women or practicing Homosexuals.

Is the hostility and misunderstanding of Catholicism you have demonstrated typical in your ecclesial community?

 

[guanophore]

The exact form that the sin bearing takes is what makes it a true sin-bearing.
Your Catechism tries to get around what Jesus as a true Sin-Bearer has to do, according to the Gospel.
Jesus is clearly stated as having taken the sin of the world “in His own body on the tree” (1Peter2:24). There has to be a reasonable explanation why He did so, but your Catechism avoids it. It seems more interested in redefining what sin-bearing is.

Actually, the Catechism does address this in detail in the sections on Sin, and The Fall. We need to be redeemed because we have become slaves to sin, as in Adam, we all fell. We cannot ransom ourselves. This explanation seems reasonable to us. I wonder why it does not to you? Perhaps your understanding of sin is also deficient.

The “603 Jesus did not experience reprobation as if He Himself had sinned.” claim of your Catechism, proves to me that your church does not believe in the true meaning of Jesus being a Sin-Bearer according to the Scripture.

Certainly the Catholic Church cannot abandon the Apostolic Teaching in order to embrace a modern innovation such as this one. I am sure it seems to you that the “true meaning” of His bearing our sins in His body on the cross is “vicarious penal substitution” but you will not find any of these words in scripture.

 

[guanophore]

So far, I have discovered that OP does not understand: 1. The Trinity. 2. The Incarnation. 3. The meaning of “sacrifice”. 4. The nature of the Jewish sacrificial system. 5.The nature of God the Father. and, 6.The actual beliefs & teaching of the Catholic Church. Now, OP is free to disagree with said teachings. (She said, from the Methodist amen corner). But, not to re-invent them. That’s cheating, & I will continue to howl about said cheating. (My 2 cents).

Zooey, have I told you lately that I absolutely treasure your perspective here on CAF?

:bowdown:

 

[guanophore]

The problem now becomes that the “offering of Jesus Himself to His Father” with our sins in His Body requires the Father to punish the Bearer of those sins. Your catechism does not explain that part of the process.
How could the Father accept Jesus as an “offering”, if He was bearing our sins?

That is why they are called “mysteries”, brkn1. They defy the human rational ability to explain.

1 Tim 3:15-16
16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion:

He was manifested in the flesh,
vindicated in the Spirit,
seen by angels,
preached among the nations,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.

However, the Father did accept Jesus as the perfect offering for our sins. This happened without the persons of the Trinity being separated from one another, or pouring out wrath on each other. When Jesus ascended to Heaven, He opened Heaven’s gates. He then sent the Spirit to remain with the Apostles and their disciples until the end of the age. This does not mean that the HS is 'separated" from the Father and Son. The nature of the Trinity is also a mystery.

Jesus could not be said to have taken on the same human nature as we have, if it were not also possible for His human nature to be separated from God by having any sin upon it or if He was bearing sin for others. It could not also honestly be said that He was tempted as we are, if failure and its resulting sin would not separate Jesus from His Father. We can be separated from God by our sin as a part of our human nature.
Once Jesus took our sin in His body, He was subject to separation from the Father, as we are by our own sin. To say otherwise is to deny that Jesus has the same human nature that we have.

I thank you for this post, because it clarifies another element of this doctrine that is based upon an erronous premise. I had not realized before that this “vicarious penal substitution” doctrine also compromises the doctrine of the hypostatic union. Jesus is one person, with two natures. In order for the interpretation “forsaken” used in this doctrine to be valid, then His human nature would have to be separated from His divine nature when He was on the cross, or at least for those moments that the Fundamentalists teach “God turned His back”.

This post seems to prove the title that I used about Christ not being considered by your church to have been actually bearing our sins in His body as He was offered to the Father. Other posts seem to say otherwise. Could someone be real clear and definite about your church’s position.

The Catholic Church wrote the NT, brkn1. What is contained in it is Catholic Teaching. When the Catholic Church canonized the books in 382, no books were permitted that contained anything that was not Catholic… When scripture says “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.” 1 Peter 2:24-25

you can rest assured that this is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

I understand and agree with the part about Jesus being innocent of committing any sin Himself.
To just say that Jesus was an offering to the Father does not cut it for me.
Thanks.

Ok. Well, if the only thing that will “cut it” for you is to embrace a doctrine that contradicts so many other fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, then I don’t think there is anything we can say that will help. It is a mystery to us how Christ became the expiation of our sins, without taking upon Himself the eternal death we earned.

 

[guanophore]

After reading your church’s Catechism on this subject many times, it is apparent that your church does not believe that our sin was placed upon Jesus as part of the one and only Sacrifice for our sins on the Cross.

It seems that you misunderstand the Catechism just as you do the Scriptures. This is not too surprising.

On the contrary, this is exactly what the catechism states. THey relevant passages have already been posted on this thread. However, as the OP indicates, you came into this thread with your mind already made up about what the Catholic Church believes, so there was no amount of facts that were going to change that.

Your Catechism uses the scriptural terms “He shall bear their iniquities”, but it always redefines what is meant by that as meaning something other than actually bearing our sin literally. Christ does not have our sin placed upon Him as our Substitute, according to your church.

The lack of insertion of the non-scriptural terms “vicarious penal substitution” does not mean that we don’t believe He bore our iniquities. The manner in which He did this was a sacrificial offering on our behalf.

Sin Bearer, by my understanding of Scripture, means that Jesus Christ actually took our sins upon Himself, even though He was innocent of any sin on His part. Jesus Christ then suffered the penalty of our sin laid upon Him during the one Sacrifice of the Cross.

Yes, we see that this is your understanding of the Scripture. However, the Catholic Church embraces what the Apostles taught. the penalty of our sins is eternal death. Jesus did not suffer this. In some mysterious manner that we do not understand, He was able to pay the penalty of our sins without actually substituting Himself vicariously into our penalty.

This suffering was at the hand of both man and His Father, Who had to punish Jesus, in our deserved place, if Jesus was to pay the penalty for our sin as our Redeemer. Jesus substituted Himself for us to pay the penalty God’s Holiness and Justice required.

This is a non-biblical and non-Apostolic idea.

That is the Gospel according to Scripture. (Isaiah 53) makes sense according to this explanation of Christ as our Sin-Bearer.

I am certain that this is the gospel according to how you understand the Scripture.

It really matters about how you understand what Jesus did for you.

brkn1, if you really believe this, then you will take the advice given you on this thread by approaching such topics differently. It does not convey any charity to make false accusations toward your neighbor. Your methods do not represent an attitude of caring concern, only misinformation, criticism, and prejudice.

I don’t see any point in going further on the subject, since it the thread seems to have been taken over by those who prefer to insult than to really contribute to understanding the subject. I want to thank those who did otherwise.

It has sure helped me a lot to clarify in my own mind why the doctrine you are pandering is so off the mark. I appreciate the good that came out of it, even though the manner in which you presented it was obnoxious.

It is obvious at least to me, that brkn1 really has your best interest in mind and that he really wants to understand and wants you to understand the truth as set forth in scripture.

I am willing to give brkn1 the benefit of the doubt on wanting to save us poor lost Catholics. She has been consistent about this since arriving here. however, the OP is a very poor modality for expressing this “best interest”. It is nearly impossible to pursuade people you ohave their best interests in mind when you lie about them.

brkn1, I can understand your reason for quitting this thread, However I would ask that you give it one last chance, if for no other reason than Cinette and everyone subscribing to this thread needs your insightful responses. Lets pray that they and everyone open themselves to the working of God’s Holy Spirit

I think brkn1 got what she came for. she made a false statement, and it was shown to be false, so she changed the subject. In the end, she wanted to “prove” that Catholics deny the gospel “as she interprets it”. Now that this has been done, she can be satisfied of what she already decided was true, the Catholic Church does not embrace this modern innovation.

 

[brkn1]

He bore in his body our sins to the cross. He is spotless, and He is God, and is not a reprobate. He is the lamb without spot or blemish that was sacrificed for our sins. The spotless lamb was not treated like tainted thing. It was sacrificed BECAUSE it was pure and without blemish.

Why don’t we start here with your above explanation.
We all agree that Jesus was innocent of any sin and yet Scripture says that He was made sin for us: “God made Him Who had no sin to be sin or us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

You say that “He bore in his body our sins to the cross.” Then your next sentence describes Jesus as spotless.
The problem with both declarations is that they present a serious contradiction. Even though Jesus was innocent of our sins, His bearing them in His body for us would prevent your claim of Him being spotless.
Could you be more clear about how this works? Thanks.

 

[brkn1]

Actually, I think it is more insulting to the infinite love of the Father to say that punishing the innocent Son to extract justice and satisfy wrath is loving. Would you punish your son for the wrongdoing of another? How would that be loving? Even if your son volunteered to take the punishment?

I disagree with you on this point.
The Triune God was willing to go to the extreme of the Father punishing His own Son, in our place, to save fallen man. Our having been God-rejecting sinners, even before this great Sacrifice, is what makes God’s great love even more amazing than we can understand with our finite minds. The infinite glory demonstrated by such infinite love given to such unworthy recipients goes beyond human logic and emotions.

Your argument also falls apart somewhat, when you consider that Abraham was willing to “slay his son”, whom he surely loved more than himself. Abraham was willing to do this because he both feared and loved God. The claim that God the Father would be unwilling to do what Abraham was willing to do, seems to place Abraham on a “one-up” position in the friendship department.

 

[guanophore]

Why don’t we start here with your above explanation.
We all agree that Jesus was innocent of any sin and yet Scripture says that He was made sin for us: “God made Him Who had no sin to be sin or us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

You say that “He bore in his body our sins to the cross.” Then your next sentence describes Jesus as spotless.
The problem with both declarations is that they present a serious contradiction. Even though Jesus was innocent of our sins, His bearing them in His body for us would prevent your claim of Him being spotless.
Could you be more clear about how this works? Thanks.

No, they don’t present a “serious contradiction”. Both things are true. If they seem to contradict to you, it is because you don’t understand one, the other, or both. Judging from your posts, I would say it is the latter. I agree with Zooey’s observataions.

No, I cannot be more clear about how it works. I confess that it is a deep my mystery to me how Christ, the spotless lamb of God, was slain to redeem us from the pit. I accept what is written in the book of Isaiah on this topic. However, I don’t find the words “vicarious penal substitution” anywhere in Isaiah.

I can’t “explain” the Trinity, either, but I accept it in faith. This is the faith that was delivered to us by the Apostles. We know that your explanation of it is erroneous because yours contradicts previous teachings from the Apostles on the Trinity and hypostatic union.

There is nothing inherintly wrong with seeking understanding and explanations for mysteries. However, when our “explanation” creates serious contradictions with what God has already revealed, it is an error.

Our having been God-rejecting sinners, even before this great Sacrifice, is what makes God's great love even more amazing than we can understand with our finite minds. The infinite glory demonstrated by such infinite love given to such unworthy recipients goes beyond human logic and emotions.

Yes, we are in agreement on this point.

Your argument also falls apart somewhat, when you consider that Abraham was willing to “slay his son”, whom he surely loved more than himself. Abraham was willing to do this because he both feared and loved God. The claim that God the Father would be unwilling to do what Abraham was willing to do, seems to place Abraham on a “one-up” position in the friendship department.

God was willing, and indeed did, sacrifice His Only Son to be the expiation of our sins. He did not do this, anymore than Abraham did, to “punish” His Son, or to pour out his wrath.

Do you see anywhere in the accounts of Abraham that he wanted to punish Isaac for someone else’s sins, or that Isaac was deserving of wrath? These elements are not necessary for an acceptable sacrifice.

 

[brkn1]

No, they don’t present a “serious contradiction”. Both things are true. If they seem to contradict to you, it is because you don’t understand one, the other, or both. Judging from your posts, I would say it is the latter. I agree with Zooey’s observataions.

No, I cannot be more clear about how it works. I confess that it is a deep my mystery to me how Christ, the spotless lamb of God, was slain to redeem us from the pit. I accept what is written in the book of Isaiah on this topic. However, I don’t find the words “vicarious penal substitution” anywhere in Isaiah.

I can’t “explain” the Trinity, either, but I accept it in faith. This is the faith that was delivered to us by the Apostles. We know that your explanation of it is erroneous because yours contradicts previous teachings from the Apostles on the Trinity and hypostatic union.

There is nothing inherintly wrong with seeking understanding and explanations for mysteries. However, when our “explanation” creates serious contradictions with what God has already revealed, it is an error.

I knew that you would not be able to really answer my question about (2 Corinthians5:21).
Penal substitution would make that verse make sense, but your version requires the blanket statement “It is a mystery.” answer.

God was willing, and indeed did, sacrifice His Only Son to be the expiation of our sins. He did not do this, anymore than Abraham did, to “punish” His Son, or to pour out his wrath.

Do you see anywhere in the accounts of Abraham that he wanted to punish Isaac for someone else’s sins, or that Isaac was deserving of wrath? These elements are not necessary for an acceptable sacrifice.

We are talking about Abraham having been willing to slay his own son, which you clearly stated that a father would not do to his innocent son. You are now trying to divert your argument away from that subject. This is an example that clearly proves your argument as incorrect about a father not being willing to harm his innocent son.