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

[Robert_in_SD]

So, then you are saying that Jesus did not die for our sins.

NO. That is NOT what I am saying. I am saying He only died once.
RK:

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?

Did you not read what I wrote? I said he died once. I said His once-for-all sacrifice at Calvary is re-presented in the mass without another bloody death. How did you read what I wrote and conclude that His death was not relevant to salvation. It is the central theme of christianity.
RK:

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?

He is “sacrificed” for our sins. He is not “punished vicariously” for our sins. The Crucifixion was an act of love by Jesus Christ, in obedience to the Father. It was not an act of wrath inflicted on the Son by the Father.

What you are suggesting is that the Father *punished *an innocent for the crimes of others. Hence you are implying the Father acted unjustly, which cannot be. The Father commanded that the Son lay down His life as a sacrifice. The Father then accepted the sacrifice offered by the Son as a propitiation for our sins. GOD did not pour out His wrath on Jesus vicariously instead of us. Your theory - vicarious substitution - implies the Father acted unjustly, which cannot be, unless you are comfortable with the thought of an unjust God.

Peace,
Robert

 

[SyCarl]

He is “sacrificed” for our sins. He is not “punished vicariously” for our sins. The Crucifixion was an act of love by Jesus Christ, in obedience to the Father. It was not an act of wrath inflicted on the Son by the Father.

What you are suggesting is that the Father *punished *an innocent for the crimes of others. Hence you are implying the Father acted unjustly, which cannot be. The Father commanded that the Son lay down His life as a sacrifice. The Father then accepted the sacrifice offered by the Son as a propitiation for our sins. GOD did not pour out His wrath on Jesus vicariously instead of us. Your theory - vicarious substitution - implies the Father acted unjustly, which cannot be, unless you are comfortable with the thought of an unjust God.

Peace,
Robert

We cannot judge God by our standards as to what is just and what is not. I think that it is quite clear that Christ’s Passion did involve an element of punishment and not just sacrifice. Otherwise why did His death involve such suffering? If it were merely a sacrifice then the death could have been quick like in the animal sacrifices that prefigured it. It must be recognized that God did not pick just any innocent to make atonement. Jesus is God, so God accepted our punishment Himself rather than inflicting it on us. Not that God did the punishing. That was inflicted by unjust men, but it was punishment and God did permit it.

Isaiah’s prophesy in Chapter 53 clearing indicates that the Messiah is chastened on our behalf. The atonement can have numerous aspects but I think one of them clearly involved punishment. This is illustrated in the writings of the Church Fathers.

Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that He might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment.

Augustine (Contra Faustum Book 14, Chapter 4)
newadvent.org/fathers/140614.htm

The believer in the true doctrine of the gospel will understand that Christ is not reproached by Moses when he speaks of Him as cursed, not in His divine majesty, but as hanging on the tree as our substitute, bearing our punishment, any more than He is praised by the Manichæans when they deny that He had a mortal body, so as to suffer real death. In the curse of the prophet there is praise of Christ’s humility, while in the pretended regard of the heretics there is a charge of falsehood. If, then, you deny that Christ was cursed, you must deny that He died; and then you have to meet, not Moses, but the apostles. Confess that He died, and you may also confess that He, without taking our sin, took its punishment.

Augustine (Contra Faustum Book 14, Chapter 7)
newadvent.org/fathers/140614.htm

For even the Lord was subject to death, but not on account of sin: He took upon Him our punishment, and so looseth our guilt.

Augustine (Expositions of the Book of Psalms, Psalm 51)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LI.html

And what has He done? “Him that knew no sin He made to be sin, for you.” For had He achieved nothing but done only this, think how great a thing it were to give His Son for those that had outraged Him. But now He has both well achieved mighty things, and besides, has suffered Him that did no wrong to be punished for those who had done wrong. But he did not say this: but mentioned that which is far greater than this. What then is this? “Him that knew no sin,” he says, Him that was righteousness itself, “He made sin,” that is suffered as a sinner to be condemned, as one cursed to die.

John Chrysostom, Homilies on 2 Corinthians, Homily 11, verse 21)
newadvent.org/fathers/220211.htm

Jesus took on himself even death, that the sentence of condemnation might be carried out, that he might satisfy the judgment that sinful flesh should be cursed even unto death. Nothing therefore was done contrary to the sentence of God, since the condition of God’s sentence was fulfilled.

Ambrose (De Fuga, 44)
angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.ambrose.html

He then that was alone of those who ever existed, the Word of God, before all worlds, and High Priest of every creature that has mind and reason, separated One of like passions with us, as a sheep or lamb from the human flock, branded on Him all our sins, and fastened on Him as well the curse that was adjudged by Moses’ law, as Moses foretells: “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” This He suffered "being made a curse for us; and making himself sin for our sakes."And then "He made him sin for our sakes who knew no sin,"and laid on Him all the punishments due to us for our sins, bonds, insults, contumelies, scourging, and shameful blows, and the crowning trophy of the Cross.

Eusebius of Caesarea (Demonstratio Envangelica, Book 1, Chapter 10)
tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_de_03_book1.htm

He says that “he bore the sins of many” on the cross, in order that he might quell them, paying the penalty that they deserved. Now the Father sent him, “having made him sin.” For also Christ became as if a sinner, inasmuch as he took on the sins of the whole world and claimed them as his own. But then he paid the penalty that was owed, the punishment belonging to sinners. At last he will come with his Father’s glory, no longer as a sinner, no longer “reckoned among the lawless.”

Oecumenius (Fragments on the Epistle to the Hebrews 9.28 Erik M. Heen & Philip D. W. Krey ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament X Hebrews, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005), p. 149.)

 

[Richard_Kastner]

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

I asked you for clarification as to the distinction between sacrifice and vicarious substitution for punishment. You say the distinction is clear, but you come back with this.

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

.

You say “Sacrifice is not substituting the victim for self.” Ok, so what is it? What concept am I tripping over and what threshold are you talking about?

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.

We know that Jesus is without sin Rom6:23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
And
Jn15:13Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
So, what was Jesus sacrificed for
1Jn3:16Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
Hebrews 9:24For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28So 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.

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.

You seem to get pretty creative in your editing of the scriptures I provide. Here is all of what I provided
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.

Notice v.12 in bold

Where do I disagree with this?

Haven’t you been saying that Christ did not die a substitutionary death for our sins?

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

Psalm 22 is prophetic of what Jesus would say on the cross and while He did say it to fulfill that prophecy Are you saying that this doesn’t convey to you the utter despair that Jesus was feeling at the thought of His beloved Father turning His back on Him, Well it does to me. So, I guess I do have a knack for reading my beleifs into at least this scripture.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

jbelokur;5213253:

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

Gabriel of 12;

Jesus did not write any Gospel with a pen and paper as we have them today; The Catholic church collected all the apostolic writing and teachings being used in the Mass that were being read in every Mass throughout the world at that time, And found many authentic Letters and teachings (epistles) from the apostles and canonized these books or Letters as inspired of God. She also found many Gnostic (heretical) writings being used and removed them from the Liturgy of the Mass. Also the Catholic Church found many gospels accredited to apostles but were proved not inspired of God or could not authenticate these books true authors and removed them from the bible or canonized listing of books to be used in the Mass Liturgy from the third century.

This same bible authenticated by the Catholic Church survives today, only to have 7 books from the old testament removed by the Protestant movement in the 16th century. And who added the word “alone” to the bible.

So yes, God gave the Catholic Church the body of Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit authority to authenticate which book was inspired of God, and which book was not. This is the binding and loosing authority Jesus gave to Peter with keys from Matthew 16:17-19 practiced by Peter’s successor in the Pope with the body of Jesus Christ the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[judechild]

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."

I don’t agree. Jesus cannot be separtated from God, because he is God. Typologically, the serpant in the desert - a “type” of Christ - was lifted up for the Isrealite people to be saved from serpant venom. However, it was not necessary for the bronze statue to take the venom that was circulating in the people’s bloodstreams and graft it onto itself in order to heal them. Now, something far more miraculous than physical healing has taken place. Christ had no more sin in Him as the bronze serpant had snake venom. Therefore, He did not have to “receive those sins upon Himself”, at least, not in the way I understand you.

That being said, I really don’t understand the significance of whether Christ was a “sacrifice or a vicarious substitution”. To me, it seems like Christ would have to be simply a sacrifice, like Issac would have been, but unless someone can explain to me why this is valid I’ll just consider it a fruitless linguistic venture.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

We cannot judge God by our standards as to what is just and what is not. I think that it is quite clear that Christ’s Passion did involve an element of punishment and not just sacrifice. Otherwise why did His death involve such suffering? If it were merely a sacrifice then the death could have been quick like in the animal sacrifices that prefigured it. It must be recognized that God did not pick just any innocent to make atonement. Jesus is God, so God accepted our punishment Himself rather than inflicting it on us. Not that God did the punishing. That was inflicted by unjust men, but it was punishment and God did permit it.

Hello Sy;

I’m not judging God. I’m judging the inconsistency of a theory that the Atonement was a vicarious substitution. We agree that Christ was punished by unjust men. As to why His death involved such suffering, perhaps to teach us of the great evil of sin, or to show just how much God loves us. I do not believe, however, that the crucifixion was simply a vicarious substitution of Christ for us. That is the basis of my objection.

SyCarl:

Isaiah’s prophesy in Chapter 53 clearing indicates that the Messiah is chastened on our behalf. The atonement can have numerous aspects but I think one of them clearly involved punishment. This is illustrated in the writings of the Church Fathers.

I don’t object to the notion that Christ underwent his suffering on our behalf. What I think cannot be supported is that God the Father vented His wrath upon His Son who was merely standing in our place. The work of Christ was rooted in love, and the response of the Father to the willing sacrifice of the Son was likewise rooted in the Father’s great love for the Son and for humanity. So, while Christ did bear our sins (as a sacrificial lamb bore the sins of jews under Mosaic law) he was not vicariously punished on our behalf for those sins. He offered His life as an atonement; not as a vicarious substitute for us. The quotes you list below are not addressed to this issue, which did not arise until after the reformation when - freed from the universality of Church teaching - reformed theologians began to make such speculations.

St. Augustine also said: “Men were held captive under the devil and served the demons, but they were redeemed from captivity. For they could sell themselves. The Redeemer came, and gave the price; He poured forth his blood and bought the whole world. Do you ask what He bought? See what He gave, and find what He bought. The blood of Christ is the price. How much is it worth? What but the whole world? What but all nations?” (Enarration on Psalm 95, no. 5).

This does not mean Christ literally ransomed us from Satan. Indeed, this statement engendered later theologians to speculate about just such a thing… a speculation that was rejected. The full discussion is here. It goes on to note:

In their general conception on the atonement the Reformers and their followers happily preserved the Catholic doctrine, at least in its main lines. And in their explanation of the merit of Christ’s sufferings and death we may see the influence of St. Thomas and the other great Schoolmen. But, as might be expected from the isolation of the doctrine and the loss of other portions of Catholic teaching, the truth thus preserved was sometimes insensibly obscured or distorted. It will be enough to note here the presence of two mistaken tendencies.

• The first is indicated in the above words of Pattison in which the Atonement is specially connected with the thought of the wrath of God. It is true of course that sin incurs the anger of the Just Judge, and that this is averted when the debt due to Divine Justice is paid by satisfaction. But it must not be thought that God is only moved to mercy and reconciled to us as a result of this satisfaction. This false conception of the Reconciliation is expressly rejected by St. Augustine (In Joannem, Tract. cx, section 6). God’s merciful love is the cause, not the result of that satisfaction.

• The second mistake is the tendency to treat the Passion of Christ as being literally a case of vicarious punishment. This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins.

Clearly, the figures and types used by the Early Church Fathers were not addressing the issues raised by this thread. Of course Jesus took upon Himself our sins and bore them on the cross… but as an act of love… an atoning sacrifice made willingly by the Savior. Not literally as an act of vicarious punishment. The will of the Triune God was never placed in a position where one Person punished another Person. Such action would be entirely inconsistent with the nature of God.

Moreover, while the act of sacrifice did involve punishment, that punishment was not inflicted by the Father on the Son. The nature of the sacrifice is that we - who were reconciled to God - were the ones who inflicted the unjust punishment.

Consider also this point. If Christ (who is God) were to take the punishment due to all of humanity as a literal vicarious punishment, then what amount of indignity inflicted upon a Supreme Being who is infinitely just and sovereign would be sufficient? The smallest pinch would be enough because any such indignity would have an infinite effect. To suggest that God was required to undergo crucifixion to satisfy our sin debt is to suggest that humanity’s place is far greater than it actually is in comparison with a Supreme God. I believe it was Abelard and St. Thomas Aquinas who theorized along these same lines (see link above).

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut. Much appreciated.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I asked you for clarification as to the distinction between sacrifice and vicarious substitution for punishment. You say the distinction is clear, but you come back with this.

I’ve tried to make the distinction clear. If you cannot see it, then I suppose I bear some of the blame for not being clear enough. I’ll try again…
RK:

You say “Sacrifice is not substituting the victim for self.” Ok, so what is it? What concept am I tripping over and what threshold are you talking about?

It is an atonement for sin (St. Augustine referred to it in terms of a ransom, if that helps), not a literal vicarious substitution. Yes, Christ bore our sins. He did not suffer the eternal punishment due for those sins on our behalf as if his work was nothing but a vicarious substitution for us. I have no dispute with you to the extent you say Chrit bore our sins. Where I disagree with you is where you conclude (incorrectly) that He stood in our place as nothing but a “stand in” for our punishment. The Cross was much more than that… it was a sacrifice and not a mere substitution.
RK:

You seem to get pretty creative in your editing of the scriptures I provide… Notice v.12 in bold.

Once again… please take note. I am not disagreeing with this passage. Christ did bear our sins as a sacrifice offered to reconcile us with the Father. Where we disagree is in your incorrect conclusion that the crucifixion was God punishing Christ as if he were simply standing in for us. The atonement was a sacrifice, and scripture is clear that it is a sacrifice. It was not a “prisoner swap.” Jesus Christ offered the Father something infinitely more valuable that what was owed… His own Divine Person… in exchange for the removal of our sin. You are saying the Father turned His back on Jesus. That sort of belief turns my stomach as it should turn yours. God is Love. God is not the unjust murderer of the Second Person of the Trinity. WE ARE. Because you are inverting this fact, you are failing to see the true depth of what Christ offered the Father from the Cross, and what is now eternally presented by the High Priest in heaven, and what Catholics participate in when attending the mass.
RK:

Haven’t you been saying that Christ did not die a substitutionary death for our sins?

Yes. But the scripture you quote supports what I’m telling you. It does not support your beleif in a mere vicarious substitution.
RK:

Psalm 22 is prophetic of what Jesus would say on the cross and while He did say it to fulfill that prophecy Are you saying that this doesn’t convey to you the utter despair that Jesus was feeling at the thought of His beloved Father turning His back on Him, Well it does to me. So, I guess I do have a knack for reading my beleifs into at least this scripture.

It conveys to me a despair that Jesus was feeling because of the utter abandonment he felt as a human being. I do not believe that his statement reveals that the Father turned His back on the Son. Rather, the Father was accepting the Sacrifice being offered out of His great love for the Son and for His creation. Christ’s last words are “Father, into thy hands I commit my Spirit.” (Lk 23:46) This does not suggest abandonment. It suggests the Father’s outstretched arms towards the Son.

Peace,
Robert

 

[brkn1]

I don’t agree. Jesus cannot be separtated from God, because he is God. Typologically, the serpant in the desert - a “type” of Christ - was lifted up for the Isrealite people to be saved from serpant venom. However, it was not necessary for the bronze statue to take the venom that was circulating in the people’s bloodstreams and graft it onto itself in order to heal them. Now, something far more miraculous than physical healing has taken place. Christ had no more sin in Him as the bronze serpant had snake venom. Therefore, He did not have to “receive those sins upon Himself”, at least, not in the way I understand you.

That being said, I really don’t understand the significance of whether Christ was a “sacrifice or a vicarious substitution”. To me, it seems like Christ would have to be simply a sacrifice, like Issac would have been, but unless someone can explain to me why this is valid I’ll just consider it a fruitless linguistic venture.

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”.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

That being said, I really don’t understand the significance of whether Christ was a “sacrifice or a vicarious substitution”. To me, it seems like Christ would have to be simply a sacrifice, like Issac would have been, but unless someone can explain to me why this is valid I’ll just consider it a fruitless linguistic venture.

Hello judechild. I think my last post to RK makes my cause for concern more clear. I think that if one thinks of the crucifixion as Jesus simply stepping in and taking our punishment, then one misses the larger picture of the sacrifice offered by Christ.

St. Augustine referred to Christ’s atonement as a ransom. It was not Christ merely saying to the Father - punish me to the same extent as you would all humanity and we’ll call it even. If that were the case, then the slightest punishment inflicted upon the infinite dignity of Jesus (who is God) would have had infinite effect. Christ’s broken fingernail would have had infinite sufficiency to set us right with the Father because Christ - having infinite dignity as the Sovereign God - would have thereby suffered infinite indignity. That being realized, the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross takes on a whole new import.

Christ offered the Father something INFINITELY more valuable than a mere vicarious substitution for us. The crucifixion was was not merely a divine “prisoner swap.” Christ offered His life as “ransom” for our release from the debt owed to God. His sacrifice, therefore, had infinitely more value than the lives of all humanity because one divine life equals MUCH MORE than the lives of all of humanity. This inequality is clear from our shared understanding of the infinite nature of God.

So, why such a bloody death? Because it reflects who WE ARE, not what the Father demands. He was the Sacrifice offered for US. WE killed Jesus on the Cross, not the Father. The Father, at the request of the Son who humbled Himself to the will of the Father, turned that supremely unjust act into an atoning sacrifice. If one thinks Christ simply “stood in” for humanity’s sins as a vicarious whipping boy one can easily miss the true depth of the sacrifice that was actually made. That’s why I believe the issue is worth discussing.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

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.

Where in scripture does the term “vicarious Substitute” appear. If it does not, then your Gospel is not so “simple.” It is the result of a misperception of the nature of Christ’s infinite sacrifice for what amounts to finite punishment.

brkn1:

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.

Why not?

brkn1:

The price for our sin is not simply physical death or all would be redeemed by their own death.

Do you believe that the only price Christ paid on the cross was physical death? Or was there something more in the nature of the ransom paid?

brkn1:

The truth of the Gospel is not a “linguistic venture”.

On this we can agree.

Peace,
Robert

 

[judechild]

Christ offered the Father something INFINITELY more valuable than a mere vicarious substitution for us. The crucifixion was was not merely a divine “prisoner swap.” Christ offered His life as “ransom” for our release from the debt owed to God. His sacrifice, therefore, had infinitely more value than the lives of all humanity because one divine life equals MUCH MORE than the lives of all of humanity. This inequality is clear from our shared understanding of the infinite nature of God.

So, why such a bloody death? Because it reflects who WE ARE, not what the Father demands. He was the Sacrifice offered for US. WE killed Jesus on the Cross, not the Father. The Father, at the request of the Son who humbled Himself to the will of the Father, turned that supremely unjust act into an atoning sacrifice. If one thinks Christ simply “stood in” for humanity’s sins as a vicarious whipping boy one can easily miss the true depth of the sacrifice that was actually made. That’s why I believe the issue is worth discussing.

Thank you Robert, these two paragraphs make the problem much clearer to me. I can see where the act of defining Christ’s sacrifice does in fact have consequence, and I believe you’ve given a good arguement for your view. At this moment, I’m going to hold off on my personal judgement until I’ve heard more of brkn1’s reasoning.

I believe I detect a bit of Aquinas’ influence in your philosophy, I’m wondering if you’ve read the Summa Contra Gentiles?

 

[judechild]

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”.

Very well. Now, tell me more; what is this “simple gospel”, and why does it say that Jesus was a vicarious substitute? Why would Christ “only…as a sacrifice” necessate the conclusion that a believer would not be redeemed? I’m interested (as I said above) in hearing both sides before I decide where I stand, so please give me reasons to support your thesis.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Thank you Robert, these two paragraphs make the problem much clearer to me. I can see where the act of defining Christ’s sacrifice does in fact have consequence, and I believe you’ve given a good arguement for your view. At this moment, I’m going to hold off on my personal judgement until I’ve heard more of brkn1’s reasoning.

I believe I detect a bit of Aquinas’ influence in your philosophy, I’m wondering if you’ve read the Summa Contra Gentiles?

I’m not nearly as well-read as I seem. I haven’t read the SCG, but I am somewhat familiar with his “other” Summa.

I find that whenever I dig into a topic my thinking seems to align with the Catholic position more and more. The more I dig, the more the Catholic position seems to align with what Scripture teaches. And the more it makes sense.

I once thought about the crucifixion as brkn1 and RK do - in my “lukewarm” days. But the more I contemplated what it was, and what is made present at the mass, the more I see that the notion of mere vicarious substitution falls so far short of the greatness of God and His plan of salvation. I now believe the sacrificial nature of the cross resulted in an overabundance (a superabundance) of grace (an “ocean of mercy” as St. Faustina would later call it) because of the offering made. It was not just a “simple” case of vicarious liability.

In one sense brkn1 is right. The primary gospel message boiled down to its purest essence is simple… God is Love. (Jn 3:16) That is why the sacrifice of Christ was pleasing to the Father and so very efficacious.

Peace,
Robert

 

[crisco]

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

Well said Robert
I’ve been ‘casually researching’ this idea of penal subsitution for the past couple of years now. It’s really fascinating to see how this one theory can have ripple effects over many other theological viewpoints. More on that in another thread at another time perhaps (the idea of imputed righteousness comes to mind…)

When discussing the penal sub model with other Christians, I often go back to the mechanism of the OT sacrifices. And, as you point out, these were never carried out with the intention of having God pour out His wrath on the animal. Rather, the animal sacrifices were meant to bear the sin of the individual (in the sense that they were on the altar due to the sin of the individual forwarding the sacrifice) and the blood was then offered to God so that punishment could be avoided altogether. The high value of the sacrifice was meant to reflect the high cost of the sin. Once again, the animal was not being punished by God - the priest was the one killing it and offering it.

At any rate, one of the other weaknesses in the penal sub model (there are many many others) is of course the fact that Jesus would have had to suffer the penalty for our sin - meaning that He would have descended to the Hell of the damned to remain there infinitely. Otherwise, this is a nice trick that God was able to play…He’ll punish Jesus for eternity, but only for a short while on the cross… Of course, this never transpired. I usually find that proponents of penal sub either avoid answering this challenge, or hand wave frantically around the ideas and ramifications.

Anyways, thanks for your insights. Much appreciated.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Well said Robert

Thanks.

crisco:

At any rate, one of the other weaknesses in the penal sub model (there are many many others) is of course the fact that Jesus would have had to suffer the penalty for our sin - meaning that He would have descended to the Hell of the damned to remain there infinitely. Otherwise, this is a nice trick that God was able to play…He’ll punish Jesus for eternity, but only for a short while on the cross… Of course, this never transpired. I usually find that proponents of penal sub either avoid answering this challenge, or hand wave frantically around the ideas and ramifications.

Thanks again! This is another interesting argument against brkn1’s and RichardKastner’s position that I had not raised. I’d like to hear how they would respond. It seems clear to me that if Jesus was simply substituting Himself for us to receive the wrath of the Father, then he would have been damned for all eternity.

Let the avoiding and hand-waiving commence! No, seriously, how would you two respond to this argument?

Peace,
Robert

 

[Zooey]

**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

I can’t stand it when someone posts, “I heard a Lutheran say…”, and what that Lutheran said is just plain wrong, and reflects poor catechesis. So, yeah, I understand, and that’s why I only listen to some Catholics here, and look for links to authentic Catholic sites.

Jon

:yup: What Jon says.
My Mama, the English/Latin teacher taught me to “Always use first sources to find out what people truly believe/say/do; never assume that anything is true until you check with those people.” Thus, it would never occur to me to tell Catholics what they believe.

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”.

You definitely aren’t catching on.
In fact, when you you make a assumption like this, you are the one who is denying the power of Christ, because you are:bigyikes: moving away from GRACE. And grace is everything!!

 

[brkn1]

WE killed Jesus on the Cross, not the Father. The Father, at the request of the Son who humbled Himself to the will of the Father, turned that supremely unjust act into an atoning sacrifice.

Peace,
Robert

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.

 

[GodIsGracious]

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.

Not necessarily. Jesus allowed it to happen. He could have stopped it, but He didn’t.

 

[brkn1]

Very well. Now, tell me more; what is this “simple gospel”, and why does it say that Jesus was a vicarious substitute? Why would Christ “only…as a sacrifice” necessate the conclusion that a believer would not be redeemed? I’m interested (as I said above) in hearing both sides before I decide where I stand, so please give me reasons to support your thesis.

“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”.
Only a vicarious Substitute Sin-Bearer could do that.

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)

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.

 

[brkn1]

Not necessarily. Jesus allowed it to happen. He could have stopped it, but He didn’t.

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.