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

[guanophore]

You know i believe in truth and equality and I want more answers to this subject of PenalSubstitution from everyone and anyone who can enlighten me on this.

I have been referred by other Reformed members of CAF to this website for accurate descriptions of this doctrine.

Type “substitutionary” into the search feature and you will pull up a lot of references. This one is firmly connected in those pages to the other heresies arising from the Reformation so it is clear how they are all connected.

 

[Zooey]

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

:bowdown:

:blushing:shaw::curtsey:

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.

List of things OP does not understand, continued:
6. The meaning of the word “mystery”. coffeeread:Hint: Knowledge of Agatha Christie is not required.)

brkn1:

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.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

I have been referred by other Reformed members of CAF to this website for accurate descriptions of this doctrine.

Type “substitutionary” into the search feature and you will pull up a lot of references. This one is firmly connected in those pages to the other heresies arising from the Reformation so it is clear how they are all connected.

1619 Philosophical Guru’s I never herd of them they are so popular
Archiparaphonista
Alleluia y O Kyrios
Alleluia.
Okirioc keba kyleocen
euprepia enedisato
endisatom Kyrioc dinamin
ke ger estereocsen in icumeni
itis u saleuthisete.
Alleluia. Nancy

 

[anthony022071]

Do you (and the RCC) really believe that Jesus Christ died on the Cross as our Sin-Bearer?
I am talking about the Gospel of Jesus Christ having a believer’s sin imputed ( layed in blame) upon Christ’s own body during the one Sacrifice of the Cross. The Gospel goes further to say that Christ then received the penalty for that sin, which a believing sinner deserved. Christ took a believing sinner’s deserved place on the Cross, as our Substitute Redeemer (penalty-Payer).

Do you believe the above statements I just made?

Christ did not have our sins imputed to him. That would make God unjust and a liar and Jesus a sinner. When it is said that Christ bore our sins,what is meant is that he took upon himself punishment for our sins. This is not the same as being charged with sin or guilt. He sacrificed himself willingly out of love for the Father and for mankind.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Christ did not have our sins imputed to him. That would make God unjust and a liar and Jesus a sinner. When it is said that Christ bore our sins,what is meant is that he took upon himself punishment for our sins. This is not the same as being charged with sin or guilt. He sacrificed himself willingly out of love for the Father and for mankind.

A Lamb, Clean, and worthy without spot, Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world Hear us OLord. He was sinless,pure.He was brought as a lamb to the slaughter.How can SIN take away Sin? When you use a blotter it is clean so you can blot up the spill. He blotted out my sin’s He made me clean.

 

[anthony022071]

[To 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.

When Paul says that God made Jesus to be sin for us,what he means is simply that God allowed for Jesus to be treated like a sinner. It was the Pharisees and scribes who imputed sin to Jesus,not God.

When it is said that Jesus bore our sins in his body,what is meant is simply that he bore suffering and punishment for our sins in his body,not that his body became sinful or that he bore our guilt. A person can only be guilty of his own sins,though he may suffer,willingly or unwillingly,for someone else’s sins. And the body is cannot be guilty of sin – the will is sinful and the conscience is guilty.

Jesus’ sacrifice was not legalistic,it was done out of love for the Father and for mankind.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

I believe it is a type of Jesus’ death on the cross. But I believe that death was a sactificial atonement. The sacrifice of Christ was a substitution for our punishment. BUT that substitution did not require that Christ suffer the wrath of God that was due to us. It required His death, it did not require that Jesus undergo the wrath of God for us.

So, you don’t feel that death is punishment?

What I have been saying all along is that there is a difference between offering a sacrifice that takes the place of punishment due to us; and substituting an individual to undergo the punishment that we would suffer.

Excuse me, could you elaborate as to exactly what that difference is. people keep saying this but, I don’t know maybe I’m just a bit slow but I don’t see the difference

Consider the following analogy… A man commits a crime that is punishable by a $1,000 fine or 10 days in jail. He does not have the money, but a friend pays it for him. No one goes to jail. This is the nature of the sacrifice offered by Christ in the Atonement, except the crime is punishable by either “the body and blood of the Lord” or “eternity in hell by the prisoner.” Christ paid the ransom - and we were set free. The manner in which He paid it expresses to all of us the severity of the crime. But it does not mean Christ literally suffered the punishment that was due.

The fine paid by the friend would in every way be a penal substitute for the person who comitted the crime. The price due for the sins of man or the punishment due is death and Jesus literally paid that price. Jesus paid the price for our crimes, crimes that are punishable by death. This punishment was not meted out by a vengeful God to fulfill some sort of need to vent His wrath. But by a loving God who saw the dire straits of man and wanted to save him. Jn3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Originally Posted by RK
What these verses mean is that through the death of Christ the punishment due us for our sins has been atoned for. This is not obviously talking of the physical death of our bodies because we all die. This is talking of the eternal death due us through sin, because as the life He gives is eternal, so the death that He atoned for is eternal (the second death Rev.2:11, 20:6, 20:14, 21:8)

I don’t disagree with this, except to say that the ransom He paid on the cross is much greater than the one-for-one exchange you seem to think it is. The Ransom paid by Christ far exceeds whatever value the punishment due to us may have been worth.

So if you do agree with me on this or as you say you don’t disagree. You agree that the verses in question Rom15:21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
mean that Christ atoned for the eternal punishment due us by His perfect sacrifice. This eternal punishment is the wrath of God which is meted out for sin and as such is a vicarious penal substitution (not my term, but it seems to be what everyone is using).
Rom6: 23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
As for the value of the sacrifice relative to the value of the punishment due us is irrelavent. The fact is that this is the only reason that Christ became a man and that was to die for us

But that does not mean the ransom paid was a literal substitution of Christ for our punishment.

Yes it does.

The problem I have with your penal substitution argument is that you tend to miss the large gap between the enormity of Christ’s sacrifice (The Eternal, Omnipotent, Lord of the Universe-God experienced death on a cross for us!) and the punishment otherwise due, (damnation of a puny race of human beings in one tiny part of God’s immense creation). The ransom far outweighed the penalty

How is this relavent to the discussion?

but it was not a literal vicarious punishment.

Yes it was.

This tells us that the thing that we earn or our wages, or the punishment due us, through our transgressions, is death and this death is contrasted with the gift (gace) of Jesus Christ which is eternal life. The wages we deserve is eternal death. The punishment we deserve is eternal death.The life He gives us through His atoning sacrifice is eternal life. For me this says it all Jesus paid the price for our sins.

I’m with you to this point.
This is not on point with the original post. I’m happy to address it with you somewhere else.

Peace,
-Robert

How is this not on point? This is speaking to the wages of our sins (death) as contrasted by the literal substitutionary sacrifice or gift (grace) of Christ (eternal life)

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

brkn1 hello! If someone beats you and violates you, you bear their sin on you but you are innocent and are not the sinner you took the brunt but you were innocent. GET IT? I paid for the other guy sinning against me, yet still he will be judged. Jesus paid the price but we still will be judged for everything we did good or bad.Jesus did not become sin, he did take my stripes for me, he got beat up in my place. Hope this helps Nancy

 

[Richard_Kastner]

When Paul says that God made Jesus to be sin for us,what he means is simply that God allowed for Jesus to be treated like a sinner. It was the Pharisees and scribes who imputed sin to Jesus,not God.

2Cor5:20Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Well, I’m sorry. But this says that He (God) not the Pharisees and scribes made Him to be sin for us In fact there is no mention of the scribes or pharisees in either epistle to the Corinthians.

When it is said that Jesus bore our sins in his body,what is meant is simply that he bore suffering and punishment for our sins in his body,not that his body became sinful or that he bore our guilt.

Christ did not become a sinner, but he did bear both our sins and the guilt/punishment for those sins on the cross. I know this because 2Cor5:21 among others tells me He does.

Jesus’ sacrifice was not legalistic,it was done out of love for the Father and for mankind.

What do you mean by legalistic?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

brkn1 hello! If someone beats you and violates you, you bear their sin on you but you are innocent and are not the sinner you took the brunt but you were innocent. GET IT?

You do not bear their sin. You bear the results of their sin.

I paid for the other guy sinning against me

You may have felt the results of the other guys sin. But you did not pay for the other guy’s sin. There is only one way that sin is payed for and that is the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

.Jesus did not become sin,

21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

 

[rtconstant]

We are redeemed by the life, death and resurrection of the Christ. By His life we see the example and the path of a more intimate relationship with God. The Christ’s very existence demonstrates that God Himself can exist without corruption within the frailty of human flesh. His actions and teachings show us how that we to can “come to the Father”. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

In His death he took on the burden of sin. Sin has very real ramifications. Sin doesn’t make God not want to be around us no more. Sin has physical consequences so Christ suffered a physical consequence (the Cross) for sins. Notice that humans, punished Christ with a human punishment. This was inflicted by the Godless (the Romans), and confirmed by the Godly (the Jews). Because both the “good” and the “bad” need God. Man or the World punished the Christ not God. So we inflicted on Him the consequences of this world, the consequences for our own actions. In a way we punished ourselves through the Christ. In judging Him we judged our selves, In bruising him we bruised ourselves, in killing Him we killed ourselves. He is the Son of Man.

In His Resurrection God removes the penalty of death our sins. And in turn granted us eternal life in and through the Christ. In ascending to sit at the right hand of the Father man is brought into Heaven and the presence of God the Father.

It was our wrath, hatred, and evil that was vented on the Christ. It was God’s compassion, love and redemption that set us free.

 

[Liraco]

Of course there is the ‘little’ problem concerning Jesus asking the Father why the Father had forsaken Him.

From Catholic Answer’s own Fr. Vincent Serpa:
"Q: Was Jesus “forsaken” momentarily by the Father on the cross? If so, then are we saying that the Trinity was momentarily split? If Jesus was not forsaken by the Father, then what really caused Jesus such agony in the garden?

A: Jesus was not forsaken by the Father on the cross. He was reciting Psalm 22 about himself: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” It goes on: “I can count every one of my bones. These people stare at me and gloat; they divide my clothing among them. They cast lots for my robe.” It is most important to realize that Jesus has a human and divine nature. It was his human nature that suffered and died, not his divine nature.
—Fr. Vincent Serpa "

It was common for Jews of that time to know all the psalms by heart so He needed only recite a part for those hearing to know the rest. Note how what is described in the rest of the psalm describes exactly what is happening to Him and is being fulfilled. Jesus was still teaching despite his suffering!

Hebrews 9:28:“So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time WITHOUT SIN unto salvation.”

You mention “Jesus can not be crucified anymore either” and are indeed correct, there is no contradiction here with the Catholic Church. The Council of Trent says the Mass is the means “whereby that bloody sacrifice once to be accomplished on the Cross might be represented, the memory thereof remain even to the end of the world, and its salutary effects applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit” (Session 22, chapter 1).

I recommend you read this article: catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9006chap.asp

"The merits or the fruits of Christ’s death need to be applied to the individual."

Hope it helps, I’ll be praying that you come to understand the truth about His Church. God bless.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

You do not bear their sin. You bear the results of their sin.

You may have felt the results of the other guys sin. But you did not pay for the other guy’s sin. There is only one way that sin is payed for and that is the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Of Course,! Your Wrong Listen, you can pay your whole life for the bad things people do against you, you come home from war and your missing your leg I thik you will pay for what the other person did to you all the rest of your life. The dimino effect.

 

[guanophore]

So, you don’t feel that death is punishment?

Yes, but the just punishment for our sins is not just physical death, but eternal death. If we got what our sins deserved we would be separated from God for eternity.

Excuse me, could you elaborate as to exactly what that difference is. people keep saying this but, I don’t know maybe I’m just a bit slow but I don’t see the difference.

Jesus took our punishment without taking what we deserve (eternal death). He sacrificed Himself to atone for our sins, but He did not take our place in hell.

So if you do agree with me on this or as you say you don't disagree. You agree that the verses in question Rom15:21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
mean that Christ atoned for the eternal punishment due us by His perfect sacrifice.

Yes. He did this without making Himself a penal substitute (taking our place in hell).

This eternal punishment is the wrath of God which is meted out for sin and as such is a vicarious penal substitution (not my term, but it seems to be what everyone is using).

A vicarious penal substitution would be that Jesus takes our place in hell, while we get a free pass out.

Rom6: 23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The fact is that this is the only reason that Christ became a man and that was to die for us

Not the only reason. He also wanted to show us how to live right.

This tells us that the thing that we earn or our wages, or the punishment due us, through our transgressions, is death and this death is contrasted with the gift (gace) of Jesus Christ which is eternal life. The wages we deserve is eternal death. The punishment we deserve is eternal death.The life He gives us through His atoning sacrifice is eternal life. For me this says it all Jesus paid the price for our sins.

Yes, he paid the price. through His sacrificial atonement on the cross He delivered us from hell. However, He did not do this by becoming a penal substitute. He did not spend eternity in hell in our place, and did not become separated from the Father as a result of the sins.

This is speaking to the wages of our sins (death) as contrasted by the literal substitutionary sacrifice or gift (grace) of Christ (eternal life)

Sacrifice and gift of grace do not equate to vicarious penal substitution.

 

[guanophore]

brkn1 hello! If someone beats you and violates you, you bear their sin on you but you are innocent and are not the sinner you took the brunt but you were innocent. GET IT? I paid for the other guy sinning against me, yet still he will be judged. Jesus paid the price but we still will be judged for everything we did good or bad.Jesus did not become sin, he did take my stripes for me, he got beat up in my place. Hope this helps Nancy

People that accept vicarious penal substitution theory usually also accept that Jesus did not die for all, but only the elect, and that the believer is not judge, but is removed from judgement. He will not be condemned or excused by his actions, but is no longer under judgement.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

So, you don’t feel that death is punishment?

Death can be a form of punishment. But in the context of the crucifixion, Christ’s death was not God’s punishment for our sins. The death was Christ’s willing sacrifice to the Father to atone for our sins and save us from God’s punishment. Is that clear enough for you?
RK:

Excuse me, could you elaborate as to exactly what that difference is. people keep saying this but, I don’t know maybe I’m just a bit slow but I don’t see the difference

If you haven’t picked up on the distinction after this many posts, there’s not much more I can say. I’ve used plain language; I’ve restated my point over and over; and I’ve even used a fine/jail analogy. There is a distinction between a sacrifice taking the place of punishment due to us; and a Person literally undergoing the punishment that is due to us, in our place. I really don’t know how else I can draw the distinction for you.
RK:

The fine paid by the friend would in every way be a penal substitute for the person who comitted the crime. The price due for the sins of man or the punishment due is death and Jesus literally paid that price. Jesus paid the price for our crimes, crimes that are punishable by death. This punishment was not meted out by a vengeful God to fulfill some sort of need to vent His wrath. But by a loving God who saw the dire straits of man and wanted to save him. Jn3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

No, your colleague brkn1 made a distinction between physical death and spiritual death (eternal separation from God). Christ was never separated from God - being God Himself. But he underwent a sacrificial death - having taken on a human nature, as the ransom. He paid the fine. He did not go to “jail” (Hell) for us. Thus, it is incorrect to understand the Atonement as a literal substitution of Christ for us with respect to God’s wrath.
RK:

So if you do agree with me on this or as you say you don’t disagree. You agree that the verses in question Rom15:21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
mean that Christ atoned for the eternal punishment due us by His perfect sacrifice. This eternal punishment is the wrath of God which is meted out for sin and as such is a vicarious penal substitution (not my term, but it seems to be what everyone is using).
Rom6: 23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Christ atoned for our sins with his perfect SACRIFICE. He did not atone by taking our place to literally undergo the punishment that is due to us for sins. The verses you quote do not support what you propose. Read them carefully, please and see that there is nothing at all supporting the conclusion that the Father poured fourth His wrath on Christ. Rather, Christ sacrificed (as our high priest) and this sacrifice was accepted by the Father.
RK:

As for the value of the sacrifice relative to the value of the punishment due us is irrelavent. The fact is that this is the only reason that Christ became a man and that was to die for us

His great love for us is truly revealed when you can see the cross of Calvary as more than just death in our place. Comments like yours are shallow sips from an Ocean of grace.
RK:

Yes it does.

No it doesn’t.
RK:

How is this relavent to the discussion?

Its relevant only insofar as I’m letting you know why it is that I think you need to reconsider your position on penal substitution.
RK:

Yes it was.

No it wasn’t.
RK:

This tells us that the thing that we earn or our wages, or the punishment due us, through our transgressions, is death and this death is contrasted with the gift (gace) of Jesus Christ which is eternal life. The wages we deserve is eternal death. The punishment we deserve is eternal death.The life He gives us through His atoning sacrifice is eternal life. For me this says it all Jesus paid the price for our sins.

Again, I’m not disagreeing with this concept. Jesus did pay the price for our sins. But he paid it with the willing sacrifice of His life, and not by literally taking God’s wrath in our place. Read what you just wrote - but without the presupposition that sacrifice = Jesus literally suffering the punishment that is due to each of us. If sacrifice means something else … paying the “fine” instead of “doing the time” (an imperfect analogy, but all I have to work with) then your position is not supported by what you’ve quoted. You are reading something else into the verse that is your own presupposition (and a false one) about the nature of the Atonement.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

People that accept vicarious penal substitution theory usually also accept that Jesus did not die for all, but only the elect, and that the believer is not judge, but is removed from judgement. He will not be condemned or excused by his actions, but is no longer under judgement.

The belief also fits nicely with the notion of imputed righteousness: Thus, one who follows these imperfect notions will reason: “God suffered my punishment. I put on Christ (by faith). My time has been served because God sees only Christ who already suffered God’s wrath. I am a dunghill covered in snow.” While there is some truth in this notion, it also misses lots of truth.

Peace,
Robert

 

[brkn1]

2Cor5:20Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Well, I’m sorry. But this says that He (God) not the Pharisees and scribes made Him to be sin for us In fact there is no mention of the scribes or pharisees in either epistle to the Corinthians.

Christ did not become a sinner, but he did bear both our sins and the guilt/punishment for those sins on the cross. I know this because 2Cor5:21 among others tells me He does.

(2 Corinthians 5:21) is a verse that clearly points out the idea of substitution that some claim does not exist as a biblical idea.

There is simply no honest way to get around " For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin;…".

It is right there, plain and simple; just as the true Gospel is.

 

[brkn1]

A Lamb, Clean, and worthy without spot, Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world Hear us OLord. He was sinless,pure.He was brought as a lamb to the slaughter.How can SIN take away Sin? When you use a blotter it is clean so you can blot up the spill. He blotted out my sin’s He made me clean.

I’m sorry, but this is not a good analogy to use. A clean blotter would get dirty blotting up a spill. Nice try though.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

Let me ask you this first. What do you mean by our Substitute Sin -Bearer. Can you give a bit more explanation of what you mean by this?