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

[benedictus2]

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.

If a believers sin is imputed on upon Christ’s own body during the One Sacrifice of the Cross, how can this be accomplished for those who came after Christ has already completed his sacrafice considering the believer was not even born yet?

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).

Can you cite exact Gospel passages that say this?

 

[benedictus2]

**JonNC’s first forum rule (for himself): **“Never tell others what they do or don’t believe. Instead let them tell you and actually listen to what they say.”

You, or anyone, may adopt it if you choose.
Jon

Very wise, Jon, very wise.

 

[benedictus2]

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?

If Christ is our Substitute Redeemer, doesn’t that mean that there is a Real Redeemer for which Christ is ONLY a substitute?

If that is so, then who is the real redeemer? If you say us, since we are the sinners, aren’t you then saying that we are capable of redeeming ourselves but Christ substituted Himself?

If I am not making much sense with this question then consider this fact. My sister is a teacher, when she is away sick or on holidays, they hire a a **substitue **teacher to do the teaching. The real teacher is not the substitute teacher, my sister is.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

Point 1) I think the first thing you need to do brkn1 is to find a correct term to use for what you mean. Substitute Redeemer is the WRONG TERM as I have explained in my post above. Penal Substitution does not mean that Jesus is a Substitute Redeemer.

Point 2) How do you understand Penal Substition? To concretize : Do you mean that God was supposed to whip and nail us to the cross but then thought “Nope I will whip and nail my Son to the cross instead?” Doesn’t that make God a Divine child abuser punishing someone who does not deserve to be punished? Doesn’t that make God the Father unjust?

 

[benedictus2]

Bill Pick:

*I just do not believe that some are so ingnorant of Christ Church. but I did read this question and I believe.WOW *

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

Perhaps you could have done a bit more research and found out what we truly believe before telling us what we believe?

 

[benedictus2]

Could some of the misunderstanding be related to the concept of sin itself !

Bingo!

Now brkn1, it would be good if you could elucidate on how you understand sin and how you understand our fallen nature and how you understand the repercussions that arise from our fallen nature.

 

[rtconstant]

If Christ is our Substitute Redeemer, doesn’t that mean that there is a Real Redeemer for which Christ is ONLY a substitute?

If that is so, then who is the real redeemer? If you say us, since we are the sinners, aren’t you then saying that we are capable of redeeming ourselves but Christ substituted Himself?

If I am not making much sense with this question then consider this fact. My sister is a teacher, when she is away sick or on holidays, they hire a a **substitue **teacher to do the teaching. The real teacher is not the substitute teacher, my sister is.

Very true. If it was wrath from God that Jesus was standing infor then, yes we could have redeemed ourselves like any criminal and simplypaid the fine or sentence. It also kind of takes away fromthe gift God is giving since He’s “saving” us from a danger that He imposed on us Himself.

 

[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.

What about Adam and Eve? Because of them we are still born of original sin if not we would not need to become clean by Baptism and confession Jesus opened thr Door of Heaven when he died and gave us a way to live forever IF WE keep the Commandments, If we love one an other If we believe He gave us all the same Oppertunity but it is our choice as to weather or not we will except it Read ST John 8:7 we are still sinners so we do bear Adams and Eves sin until we confess and are Baptised. You are Loved Nancy

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

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.

YOO! not a Spiritual Blotter! You are loved

 

[benedictus2]

What about Adam and Eve? Because of them we are still born of original sin if not we would not need to become clean by Baptism and confession Jesus opened thr Door of Heaven when he died and gave us a way to live forever IF WE keep the Commandments, If we love one an other If we believe He gave us all the same Oppertunity but it is our choice as to weather or not we will except it Read ST John 8:7 we are still sinners so we do bear Adams and Eves sin until we confess and are Baptised. You are Loved Nancy

Very well put, Nancy!

By the way, what time is it there now?. Here it is 12:25 am

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Very well put, Nancy!

By the way, what time is it there now?. Here it is 12:25 am

10:49 am I’m having a coffee! Jesus came to give us life and more aboundently, and to show us how to pray and humble ourselfs and to forgive He was the greatest Teacher that ever walked this earth.He set the captives free, opened the Gates of heaven made it possible to overcome and walk in his grace. We have his forgiveness for our sins when he died on the cross, future and past but we need to ask and believe, and walk in his statues, and put on the full armour of God. You are Loved Nancy Thank You!

 

[benedictus2]

10:49 am I’m having a coffee!

Well have a wonderful day! It is now 1:01 am and I am off to bed. Good morning!

 

[Richard_Kastner]

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?

Rom 6:23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
The bible says that the wages or in other words what is due us (because we earned it) is death. This is the only punishment due us. I mean really what else could there be. What you are saying here wether intentional or not is that Jesus’ death was not God’s punishment, but He atoned for our sins (and by extension for the punishment) by that sacrifice. If Jesus sacrifice was not a substitutional sacrifice, how could it atone for a non existant punishment. Your reasoning just is not making sense.

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.

You have used plain language and you have stated your point over and over The trouble is that language has failed. Your fine/jail analogy falls short as I have stated it is a perfect model for penal substitution.

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…

Here we go again, you say there is a distinction, but you fail to state what that distinction is.

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.

Christ had two natures. He is 100% God and He is 100% man. The humanity of Jesus paid the price for our sins by literally dieing our eternal death. He did this by being seperated from His Father. This is what He is talking about in the garden when He said in Matt26:39And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
And again on the cross when He felt the full impact of the seperation from His beloved Father. When He said 46And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
As you have said the sacrifice of Christ was so much more that the punishment due us and perhaps that is why His temporary seperation from the Father was enough to pay the price for our eternal death. I don’t know, but I do know that it was and is sufficient. It payed the whole price. The only thing left for me to do is accept the gift in faith.

But he underwent a sacrificial death - having taken on a human nature, as the ransom.

If taking on a human nature paid the ransom. Why did He have to die?

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.

He did pay the fine. The biblical defination for hell is the gave. So Jesus did go to hell for us. Again, Jesus paid the price for us literally and substitutionally. He is the atoneing sacrifice for our sins and any other way you can think of. He paid it all.

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.

Again you fail to distiguish how Jesus perfect SACRIFICE was not literally undergoing the punishment due us.

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.

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.
Rom6: 23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
The wages of sin is death (the wrath of God). If we are made alive in Christ. He paid the price. (substituted His death for ours)

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.

Please enlighten me as to what that “more” is. Jn 3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. This is enough for me.

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.

Since the manifestation of God’s wrath is our death (Rom6:23) above, what I hear you saying here is that Jesus paid the price for our sins with His life, but He didn’t die. Doesn’t make sense to me.

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.

How is “paying the fine” not a substitute for “doing the time”

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Dear Richard Kastner, You don’t get it because we are from differnt schools, we both believe but we do not agree in the method of belief. One is an apple one is a pare, we are both fruit, God made us both, so with that I realy think you should read the whole chapter of Roman’s 11 and that will help you, I hope. God Loves You and I do to NancyHave a wonderful day!

 

[brkn1]

If a believers sin is imputed on upon Christ’s own body during the One Sacrifice of the Cross, how can this be accomplished for those who came after Christ has already completed his sacrafice considering the believer was not even born yet?

All of eternity past, present, and future are as one page to God. It would be as if all things ever done or to be done are forever present before God, with nothing hidden.
All future sins must also be incuded as imputed upon Christ’s own body, during the One Sacrifice, or they could not be included as having been paid for.

 

[Liraco]

And again on the cross when He felt the full impact of the seperation from His beloved Father. When He said 46And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
As you have said the sacrifice of Christ was so much more that the punishment due us and perhaps that is why His temporary seperation from the Father was enough to pay the price for our eternal death.

Apparently I’m invisible so I’ll quote again:
"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 "

He did pay the fine. The biblical defination for hell is the gave. So Jesus did go to hell for us. Again, Jesus paid the price for us literally and substitutionally. He is the atoneing sacrifice for our sins and any other way you can think of. He paid it all.

Jesus can’t go to Hell because the very definition of Hell is separation from God. You can’t separate God from Himself. Jesus went to the “abode of the dead” (Hades/Sheol) to open the gates of Heaven to those who were waiting for the Messiah. Unless you’re saying that Jesus is not God, there’s no way to go down to the Hell of the sinners who are separated from Him.

@Brkn: please read me previous post to answering your questions (page 17)

 

[brkn1]

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?

You are correct about the term I used not being a clear one. They should used separately to avoid confusion.

My explanation is as follows.
Jesus was sent by the Father to redeem us from our sins. (Galatians 4:4-5)
During the time of the actual One Sacrifice for our sin, God the Father “made Him” (Jesus) “to be sin for us, Who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.” (Jesus). There is the clear substitution of Jesus in our deserved place as sinners, so that the Father could satisfy His Holy requirement that all sin be punished.
“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by BECOMING A CURSE for us” (as our Substitute in order to redeem us) “for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.”” (Galations 3:13) Jesus became the cursed One in our place as cursed sinners to pay God’s required penalty for our sins.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

BRKN1,THE JDS HERESY: EXPOSING THE FALSE DOCTRINE: JESUS DIED SPIRITUALLY
The question under consideration is: Did Jesus actually become “sin” at Calvary and experience spiritual death? The teachers of the JDS heresy insist that He did, whereas God’s Word states repeatedly that His death was physical. We are redeemed “…through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ…” (Heb. 10:10).

Several years ago when this doctrine first began to be stressed by certain charismatic teachers, I designated this error, for the sake of brevity, as the JDS DOCTRINE (Jesus Died Spiritually). Therefore, it will be referred to as JDS in this book hereafter.

Did Jesus literally become “sin” on the cross as the JDS ministers teach, or was He a Sin-offering? Are you aware that the Bible clearly shows that Jesus was a Sin-offering, holy, and pure, just as the Old Testament type foreshadowed?

Did Jesus go to Hell for three days where He was united in nature with Satan who became His master? The JDS Doctrine teaches this error. The Bible, however, states that at death Jesus went to be with His heavenly Father, not to be with Satan in the Pit. As He died He said: “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit” (Luke 23:46).

Did Jesus redeem man in Hell or on the cross? The advocates of the JDS Doctrine teach that redemption was accomplished in the Pit! Jesus, however, contradicts this error with His own words from the cross, which indicate that He had completed His redemptive work there, for He said, “It is finished.” Whatever deluded men may say to the contrary, these three words stand as a permanent rebuke to the JDS error.

Did the sinless Son of God become unregenerate and lost at Calvary? Did He have to be to be born again and justified from sin as the JDS ministers teach? The JDS position on this matter indicates the enormity of their delusion, for we are told again and again that the sinless Son of God was lost on the cross and had to be born again-in Hell of all places!

Not only is such teaching heresy, but we also find that the JDS Doctrine does not solve the problem of the redemption of sinners, it only creates a new problem: Who, then, died for Jesus to redeem Him from His unregenerate state and provide for His justification? Who provided an atonement for Him if He literally became sinful with sinful humanity?

Did the blood of Jesus atone for sin? This is the central purpose for the sacrificial shedding of blood in Scripture. Here once more the JDS teaching is shown to be totally out of harmony with the Word of God, although it is in line with the teaching of the religious cults and of Liberalism. One of the leading proponents of the JDS heresy states: “When his blood poured out, IT DID NOT ATONE, it did away with the handwriting of the ordinances that were against us” (Col. 2:14). He then adds that Jesus redeemed man, not on the cross, but in Hell.

Are you aware that one of the central doctrines of religious cult teaching is a denial of the blood atonement of Jesus Christ (See my book: Every Wind of Doctrine)? This statement alone from this “charismatic” minister, stating that the blood of Jesus did not atone, should be enough to alert any Bible-believing Christian to the source of such heresy. Even though the JDS teachers make some reference at times to the blood of Jesus from a seemingly biblical standpoint, nevertheless, they have destroyed its power to cleanse from sin by teaching that Jesus became an unholy sacrifice on the cross.

Again, was it total identification with sinners by Jesus on the cross, or was it a substitution for sinners? The distinction is important. The JDS ministers confuse the identification of Jesus with the human race at His birth with His substitution for sinners on the cross.

If He became literal “sin” and was lost and unregenerate at Calvary, then He would have been an unacceptable offering to God for the sins of others; whereas, if He remained pure and holy, as the Scriptures show, then God could accept Him as a substitute on the behalf of sinners. Only in this way could He fulfill the Old Testament type, whereby the animal for the sin-offering had to be spotless and without blemish. Moreover, the sin-offering was regarded as most holy even after its death.

This, then, is a general outline of what will be discussed in more detail in the following pages. Why should you be concerned about whether Jesus did or did not die spiritually? Because the Bible shows that your eternal salvation rests upon what you personally believe about the blood atonement of Jesus Christ! It is here-at the cross-not in the pit of Hell, that your salvation either stands or falls

The Bible is emphatic on this matter. A sinner cannot redeem another sinner, especially if both are lost! One would think that this fact is too obvious to need any explanation. The guilty can only be redeemed by someone who is guiltless, and remains so both during and after the work of redemption. In such a case, the guiltless individual could then act as a substitute, suffering the punishment for which the guilty party is liable. He could not do so, however, if he himself had become guilty by identifying with sin as the JDS doctrine contends.

In this case, the guiltless, who had become guilty by identification, could no longer act as an acceptable substitute. The main thrust of the entire Old Testament sacrificial system, is to show that Jesus was a guiltless Substitute, Who, like the Old Testament type, remained pure and holy both on the cross and after His death.

There is more, do you need more? Love of Christ Nancy

 

[anthony022071]

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.

They are,of course,mentioned in the four gospels. The historical fact is that it was the scribes and Pharisees who imputed sin to Jesus (that is,they charged him with sin) and put him to death. God only allowed for this to happen.

God made Jesus to be sin in that he allowed Jesus to be put to death like a sinner.
The literal reading of that passage makes for an absurdity. God would not make someone guilty of sins he did not commit. That would make God an unjust judge. Guilt has to do with one’s conscience (not with punishment) and Jesus’ conscience was clean.

 

[anthony022071]

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.

If Jesus was not a sinner,he could not have had guilt as his own to bear. Guilt has to do with a person’s own conscience,and Jesus’ conscience was clean. Our own personal guilt is not separable from our own personal sins. God judges each person according to the conscience of the person,and he does not impute guilt where there is none.

There’s a difference between Jesus bearing our sins and actually having sins
He bore our sins in the figurative sense that he suffered and died for our sins,not that God imputed our sins to him.

If God had imputed sin to Jesus,he would have imputed sin to himself,since Jesus is the Word of God and shares in the divine nature of the Father and is one in being with him.

What do you mean by legalistic?

Having to do with the mechanisms of a court of law or a legal system. God does not work like that. The Father did not have his Son sacrificed as a legal necessity,it was done as an act of love.