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

[Richard_Kastner]

Yes, Jesus died only once. Catholics agree 100%. His suffering and death are “finished.” His sacrifice and priesthood remain perpetual, of course – otherwise we could’t avail ourselves of them now in 2009. His one sacrifice is everlasting.

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?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

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.

Jesus’ death on the cross was a sacrifice, not a vicarious substitution for punishment. There is a clear distinction.

It does not follow from scripture that Jesus suffered punishment as a vicarious substitution for our sins. What was necessary (in accordance with God’s plan) was that Jesus was to be a sacrifice made in atonement for our sins. Yes, we believe Jesus died once for our sins. Yes, we believe His death on the cross atoned for all sins. But we reject the notion that Jesus Christ became a reprobate sinner in our place, against, whom the Father exacted punishment in our place. Jesus was not made a reprobate sinner on the cross. Rather, He remained at all times both the innocent victim and the High Priest of the sacrifice, and nothing less. That is what Catholics believe. That is what is consistent with Scripture.

Your vicarious punishment theology implies that the Father poured out His wrath on an innocent; a concept entirely inconsistent with a God who is infinitely just. It also is not the case that God is moved to reconciliation simply because His wrath has been averted by Christ’s suffering and death. Rather, God is Love, and it was He who gave us His Son to be the sacrifice, and that sacrifice was rooted in perfect obedience to the will of the Father. Vicarious punishment is a distortion of this relationship between Father and Son, and a distortion of the relationship established by the One Mediatorship of Jesus Christ.

Read more here.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

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?

We offer Him over and over again precisely because He is the one acceptable sacrifice that you acknowledge Him to be. We do not sacrifice Him over and over again. He only died once. And we offer Him because that is what He directed us to do, just as He did at the Last Supper.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

If Jesus, as our Sin-Bearer, was not being punished in our deserved place for those sins, then there is really no reason (outside of some vague symbolism) for Jesus to bear anyone’s sin.

He bore our sins just as a Jewish sacrifice at the temple bore sin. Jews of that time understood that the sacrifice was not a vicarious substitution, but an act of atonement. It was not mere “symbolism.” It was an act of will and obedience to God to give up something valuable and spotless as a real sacrifice. Jews sacrificed spotless lambs and other animals. Destruction of these animals was a way of giving them wholly over to God as an act of sacrifice and obedience. Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross should be seen the same way… an act of obedience to the will of the father, and the offering of the perfect spotless Lamb, but with Jesus in the role of both High Priest and Lamb. It is not symbolism, but completion of what was foreshadowed throughout OT history.

In short, Jesus was not being punished in our place. He was being offered as the perfect sacrifice to reconcile us to the Father. The distinction is clear. “Sacrifice” does not impliy “vicarious punishment.”

Peace,
Robert

 

[Philthy]

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.

First let me say that you are now being stubborn! You asked - umm actually you accused Catholics of not believing in Christ as the sin-bearer to pay the price for our sins. We have unanimously and unequivocally told you that we do, and that reality is easily confirmed in the Catechism. Now that you have seen that for yourself, instead of politely acknowledging your error you move on to a slightly different topic - the understanding of how that price that we all agree he paid gets applied to our souls. You started with the question of whether Christ paid the penalty as sin bearer and have moved to the how the penalty is paid. That’s a slightly different question. Catholics believe that we can add nothing to Christ’s work on the Cross - you need to get over it - you have been told a falsehood by a trusted source, it may even have been a lie for all I know. I dont judge you or your motives and if you have beared false witness against my faith I forgive you - Im totally confident in God’s competence in that department!
The reason the Catechism states that we have to merit justification (bad term, but it is what it is) is because God requires us to “merit our own justification” in order to have the price that Christ paid 2000 years ago applied to us today. Think about it: When did Christ pay the price for our sins as sin-bearer? 2000 years ago. When does that price get applied to the believer of today? Is it 2000 years ago or at some other time, like when they come to faith in Christ? Im gonna assume that you would say that it is applied when* they* come to faith in Christ. And what is the event that causes the person to go from being unjustified to being justified by God? Faith! Faith is not purely an act of God and neither is any act of love. They are actions that we must cooperate in - our conscience and free will, empowered by God’s grace allow us to choose faith, love, etc. So we dont do it entirely “on our own”. But at the same time, God does not “force” us to believe and does not force us to love. If he did, he would not have commanded us to love one another. Now neither faith or any other act of the human will “merits” justification in the absolute sense. **The only reason that faith and other actions (forgiving others, loving others, etc etc) “merit” justification is because God, in His sovereignty has bound Himself to justify people according to these conditions (faith, love, forgiveness…) and God is faithful. **
That is the context in understanding what the CC means when they say that we “merit justification for ourselves”. They simply mean that we meet the conditions that God has sovereignly and unilaterally established for the dispensation of Grace.

I fully anticipate that we will next cover the topic of how can grace be a gift if it is merited - its a natural question, but we will deal with one thing at a time. Im hopeful that first you can muster the courage to acknowledge that Catholics believe in Christ as the sin bearer first.

 

[brkn1]

First let me say that you are now being stubborn! You asked - umm actually you accused Catholics of not believing in Christ as the sin-bearer to pay the price for our sins. We have unanimously and unequivocally told you that we do, and that reality is easily confirmed in the Catechism. Now that you have seen that for yourself, instead of politely acknowledging your error you move on to a slightly different topic - the understanding of how that price that we all agree he paid gets applied to our souls. You started with the question of whether Christ paid the penalty as sin bearer and have moved to the how the penalty is paid. That’s a slightly different question. Catholics believe that we can add nothing to Christ’s work on the Cross - you need to get over it - you have been told a falsehood by a trusted source, it may even have been a lie for all I know. I dont judge you or your motives and if you have beared false witness against my faith I forgive you - Im totally confident in God’s competence in that department!
The reason the Catechism states that we have to merit justification (bad term, but it is what it is) is because God requires us to “merit our own justification” in order to have the price that Christ paid 2000 years ago applied to us today. Think about it: When did Christ pay the price for our sins as sin-bearer? 2000 years ago. When does that price get applied to the believer of today? Is it 2000 years ago or at some other time, like when they come to faith in Christ? Im gonna assume that you would say that it is applied when* they* come to faith in Christ. And what is the event that causes the person to go from being unjustified to being justified by God? Faith! Faith is not purely an act of God and neither is any act of love. They are actions that we must cooperate in - our conscience and free will, empowered by God’s grace allow us to choose faith, love, etc. So we dont do it entirely “on our own”. But at the same time, God does not “force” us to believe and does not force us to love. If he did, he would not have commanded us to love one another. Now neither faith or any other act of the human will “merits” justification in the absolute sense. **The only reason that faith and other actions (forgiving others, loving others, etc etc) “merit” justification is because God, in His sovereignty has bound Himself to justify people according to these conditions (faith, love, forgiveness…) and God is faithful. **
That is the context in understanding what the CC means when they say that we “merit justification for ourselves”. They simply mean that we meet the conditions that God has sovereignly and unilaterally established for the dispensation of Grace.

I fully anticipate that we will next cover the topic of how can grace be a gift if it is merited - its a natural question, but we will deal with one thing at a time. Im hopeful that first you can muster the courage to acknowledge that Catholics believe in Christ as the sin bearer first.

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

 

[Godfollower]

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

Want to know what Scripture says about that?

Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation. For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will.

Phillippians 2:12-13.

Jesus paid the full price for our sins. That is and always has been Catholic teaching. But not all are saved. How can that be, if Jesus paid the ransom full price? Because, in order to be saved, we have to accept salvation. How do we do that? By carrying out His commands. It isn’t enough to call Him “Lord”:

Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 7:21.

Jesus’ once-for-all sacrifice is what saves us. Nothing else lets us have salvation. But we have to accept His gift for it to apply to us. If we reject it, we will not be saved.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

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.

So, you’re starting your analysis from the assumption that the Church doesn’t really mean what it says?

brkn1:

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.

That’s not correct. Christ merited all that was required for the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God. There is nothing we can do to merit that for ourselves. Rather, we receive the gift in salvation in Christ through baptism, then respond to that freely given grace with good works that are pleasing to God only because they are accomplished through Christ, working in us. There is no self-meriting of salvation under Catholic theology. It salvation being worked out with our loving response to God’s grace. This is not a hard concept to understand, yet you have made quite a mess of it, it seems.

brkn1:

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. 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.

Again, you misunderstand. It is not our work being added to his work to attain redemption. It is His grace that redeems us and works through us with our willing assent so that we remain in a loving relationship with God. What you are suggesting is a form of Semi-Pelagianism that was soundly rejected by the Church centuries ago.

brkn1:

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

We agree that He did pay the full price. But that price was not paid by His receiving the Father’s wrath as a vicarious substitute for each of us. The price was paid by His complete obedience to a loving Father who loves us so much that He delivered over His only Son to be a perfect sacrifice for our redemption. He bore our sins as an innocent victim… innocent as lamb … not as some universal reprobate.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Philthy]

brkn1;:

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.

Interesting - who gets to decide what “the meaning of them” is? You?

The RCC does not accept that Jesus Christ paid the full price for a believer’s sin as a Sin-Bearer,

Yes they do, as I have already pointed out to you with patience.

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 different issue and it is one of your own fabrication, based on ignorance.

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.

We dont “add” works, God has “prepared good works in advance that we should walk in them”

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.

Absolutely. Christ’s work of sin-bearing redeemer is finished, but the work of salvation is ongoing. Its very simple really. People still get saved every day - does that mean that Christs work somehow wasnt finished? I would say in a certain sense yes. It has nothing to do with whether he paid the full price or not. It has to do with whether those people he paid the full price for accept his gift of forgiveness through faith and love.

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

I know - Ive heard everything that you have said - have you been listening to me?

 

[racing59]

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

I’m still waiting for an answer to what I posted on #59.

 

[judechild]

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 Plagianism, a heresy according to the Catholic Church, and has been recognized as such since the 5th Century. No one can merit his salvation without grace.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

We offer Him over and over again precisely because He is the one acceptable sacrifice that you acknowledge Him to be. We do not sacrifice Him over and over again. He only died once. And we offer Him because that is what He directed us to do, just as He did at the Last Supper.

Peace,
Robert

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?

 

[Soutane]

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

I have one small request.It irritates,annoys and vexes me to see the Catholic Church referred to as RCC.I am a Catholic,not an RC.I attend the Catholic Church NOT the RCC.As this is a Catholic website I do not feel my request is out of line.There are other Catholics who may not care one way or the other but THIS ONE does.Please do not refer to the Church in the diminuative.If you are not trying to make some kind of point I am sure you will comply.I ask you this as a fellow Christian.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

In your opinion. What is the difference between an offering and a sacrifice?

The distinction I was trying to draw was that the Church continually offers the same Victim (Christ) to the Father. So, to the extent that it is an offering of the same victim without a new bloody death/killing it is a sacrifice.

Where I see confusion among protestants is when they conclude (incorrectly) that because Catholics call the mass a sacrifice it must require the Victim to suffer a new death. That is false thinking, because the sacrifice of the mass is the re-presentation of the same Jesus Christ, who died once and rose on the third day. He is not killed over and over again in the mass, as many protestants beleive based on the term “sacrifice.” But He is offered again and again in the sense that the mass re-presents the infinite merits of Christ to the Father. If you still do not understand, just read the Eucharistic Prayers that are read in the mass to see that we are not re-crucifying Christ. We are celebrating His glory… Here is a link

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

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?

See my earlier post. Another way of responding would be to say “it depends.”

If you are using the term “sacrifice” to describe the act of ritually killing a victim and then offering its life to God, then the term sacrifice has two parts… the bloody killing part, and then the offering part. The first part of the sacrifice of Christ involved the bloody death of Jesus by beating, scourging and crucifixion at Calvary. Humanity crucified Christ. But the “offering” was made by Jesus Christ - our High Priest - who willingly laid down His life in obedience to the will of the Father.

In a different way, when the Church speaks of the mass as a sacrifice it refers to the act of calling to mind Christ’s death and offering Christ to the Father as the same Victim whose death reconciled us to the Father. This offering is made without another bloody death of the Victim. I was using the term “offering” to refer to the manner in which the Church re-presents (offers) the same Victim in an unbloody manner (without the bloody death sacrifice) at the mass. It is not a re-sacrifice (in the sense that it does not require a new death) but it is an offering of the same Victim that died once and is now risen.

Christ remains the only acceptable sacrifice. That is why the mass continues to offer Him to the Father.

I hope this helps.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Jesus’ death on the cross was a sacrifice, not a vicarious substitution for punishment. There is a clear distinction.

What would that distinction be?

It does not follow from scripture that Jesus suffered punishment as a vicarious substitution for our sins. What was necessary (in accordance with God’s plan) was that Jesus was to be a sacrifice made in atonement for our sins.

How could Jesus be a sacrifice for our sins, if He did not receive those sins upon Himself.
Your statement above is just not true. "It does not follow from scripture that Jesus suffered punishment as a vicarious substitution for our sins."
1Cor5:19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
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.

Isaiah 53:8He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Yes, we believe Jesus died once for our sins. Yes, we believe His death on the cross atoned for all sins. But we reject the notion that Jesus Christ became a reprobate sinner in our place, against, whom the Father exacted punishment in our place. Jesus was not made a reprobate sinner on the cross. Rather, He remained at all times both the innocent victim and the High Priest of the sacrifice, and nothing less. That is what Catholics believe. That is what is consistent with Scripture.

Your vicarious punishment theology implies that the Father poured out His wrath on an innocent; a concept entirely inconsistent with a God who is infinitely just. It also is not the case that God is moved to reconciliation simply because His wrath has been averted by Christ’s suffering and death. Rather, God is Love, and it was He who gave us His Son to be the sacrifice, and that sacrifice was rooted in perfect obedience to the will of the Father. .

Read more here.

Peace,
Robert

My goodness brother, you need to rethink your theology a whole lot. If that is the official standing of either your or your church, then you are just flat out wrong. Jesus paid the whole price for our sins. There is nothing that we can do that is good enough to pay for our own salvation. When Jesus cried out on the cross “My God My God why have you forsaken Me?” He was feeling His Father turning His back on Him. BECAUSE OF OUR SINS. He was feeling the full and total wrath of God. And He did this for us:Jn15:13Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Vicarious punishment is a distortion of this relationship between Father and Son, and a distortion of the relationship established by the One Mediatorship of Jesus Christ.

This statement is a distortion of God’s plane of salvation or the mystery of God. 23If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
Col1:24Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church:
25Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
26Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
27To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

 

[Cluny]

As C. S. Lewis wrote in MERE CHRISTIANITY, our faith should be in Jesus Christ Himself, and not in a theory about how He saves us.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

What would that distinction be?

Sacrifice is not substituting the victim for self. You’re tripping over the concept at the threshold.
RK:

How could Jesus be a sacrifice for our sins, if He did not receive those sins upon Himself. Your statement above is just not true. "It does not follow from scripture that Jesus suffered punishment as a vicarious substitution for our sins."
1Cor5:19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
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.

Where does this say Jesus suffered the punishments that we were to suffer as a vicarious substitute? It does not. It says he became sin. But this is understood within the context of sacrifice, not substitution of one Person for another person.
RK:

Isaiah 53:8He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

I agree that he was stricken, but he was not the recipient of the punishment due to us for sin. He was a propitiation, not a substitute. You are implying something that is not supported in this text… again.
RK:

My goodness brother, you need to rethink your theology a whole lot. If that is the official standing of either your or your church, then you are just flat out wrong. Jesus paid the whole price for our sins. There is nothing that we can do that is good enough to pay for our own salvation.

Where do I disagree with this?
RK:

When Jesus cried out on the cross “My God My God why have you forsaken Me?” He was feeling His Father turning His back on Him. BECAUSE OF OUR SINS. He was feeling the full and total wrath of God. And He did this for us:Jn15:13Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

You have a knack for reading your beliefs into scripture. The reference is to Psalm 22. Please read Psalm 22 and see how it ends… in triumph just as the crucifixion ended in resurection.

I can see that on this subject we are simply not going to agree.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Richard_Kastner]

In short, Jesus was not being punished in our place. He was being offered as the perfect sacrifice to reconcile us to the Father. The distinction is clear. “Sacrifice” does not impliy “vicarious punishment.”

Peace,
Robert

So, then you are saying that Jesus did not die for our sins. What is this story about Jesus dieing on the cross all about then. 23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. If Jesus didn’t die for our sins, then whose?
Jesus was being punished in our place and sacrifice does imply “vicarious” or substitutionary punishment. Again, how could He be offered as a sacrifice of reconciliation, if he never took our sins upon Himself?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

As C. S. Lewis wrote in MERE CHRISTIANITY, our faith should be in Jesus Christ Himself, and not in a theory about how He saves us.

I agree with you. My faith is in Christ. But that does not mean that these issues should not be discussed charitably among those who love Christ.

Peace,
Robert