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

[Robert_in_SD]

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.

How is this the “logical” conclusion? God’s plan of salvation unfolded, and we sinful humans played the only role our nature allowed us to play, a weak and sinful role (with Mary as the one exception; another topic). But that does not mean we somehow saved ourselves by killing Christ. Christ - who is God - submitted His will to the will of the father and turned humanity’s act of unjust killing into His own Salvific act.

In a hypertechnical sense, we all play a “role” in our salvation by committing the sins that necessitate the application of His saving grace. But our “role” does not merit that gift, just as the act of killing Jesus on the cross merited nothing for those persons who participated. Are you trying to now make the point that somehow Catholics believe our own acts apart from Christ merit our salvation. Because that is also wrong, but the discussion is off-topic.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

“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.

The Lamb of God - the perfect sacrifice could bear the sin of the world and atone for it without substitutionary punishment. Your conclusion is unsupported.

brkn1:

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”.

No question that he submitted Himself as a sacrifice and suffered thereby. It does not follow that he stood in our place and suffered vicariously. If so, then He would be in Hell for eternity. You don’t believe Christ is in Hell do you?

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

It is obvious that it is NOT referring to vicarious substitution. It is referring to an atonement but not a vicarious punishment.

You are reiterating the same scripture quotes, then stating your conclusion. But the conclusion is not supported by the scripture. It is clear you are reading vicarious substitution into the text. But it’s not there.

You also have not responded to the deeper issues that I discussed above. What about the Father as unjustly punishing an innocent. Are you simply OK with that. What about the infinite indignity of the slightest scraping of the Sovereign God? Do you really think that an eternity in Hell for a tiny creature like me or you can even register on the Divine richter scale? Do you really believe that the Supreme Creator and Lord of the Universe HAD to suffer scourging, beating, crowning with thorns and death by crucifixion - all of that - to atone for us? He could have waived His holy finger and released us from sin. But He CHOSE to do it differently, by submitting His will to the will of the father and making His death an INFINITELY SUFFICIENT sacrifice so far above vicarious punishment that it lifts the act of Atonement to a level of sacrifice that cannot really be imagined by the human mind. How do you respond?

Peace,
Robert

 

[brkn1]

The Lamb of God - the perfect sacrifice could bear the sin of the world and atone for it without substitutionary punishment. Your conclusion is unsupported.

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

No question that he submitted Himself as a sacrifice and suffered thereby. It does not follow that he stood in our place and suffered vicariously. If so, then He would be in Hell for eternity. You don’t believe Christ is in Hell do you?

Jesus suffered tremendous physical suffering, humiliation, and eventual physical death at the hand of man.
Jesus suffered spiritual death for a time at the hand of the Father. This was during the time of darkness, when the transaction was only between the Father and His Son Jesus. The details are hidden to us and our finite minds, but we know that this was when the real payment was being made to satisfy God’s Holiness and Justice.
Jesus’ cry in agony, “My God, My God why hast Thou forsaken Me?” shows how infinitely awful this part of Jesus’ suffering was. This was the time when God the father had to turn from His Son who was bearing the sins of the entire human race.

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

 

[crisco]

There would be no need for Jesus to be a Sin-Bearer, if there was no substitutionary punishment.unless your definition of what sin bearing consitutes is off the mark. What if sin bearing were a way of saying that because of the sins of the world, Jesus became obedient to the Father’s will to reconcile us to himself. Therefore, Jesus bears the sins in the sense that He takes them up as the issue to be dealt with

Jesus suffered tremendous physical suffering, humiliation, and eventual physical death at the hand of man. yes He certainly did as the Gospels tell us
Jesus suffered spiritual death for a time at the hand of the Father.I think you’ll have a tough time proving this one from scripture. Think about the implications here - an integral part of Trinity dies? How can God - who is Spirit, die??? This was during the time of darkness, when the transaction was only between the Father and His Son Jesus or that God was showing us the seriousness of our sin in that His Son was put to death by the hands of men. The details are hidden to us and our finite mindsif this is such a key part of the Gospel, then why is it hidden?? Why can’t the obvious message of sacrifice - which is repeatedly used throughout the OT/NT be applied here instead?, but we know that this was when the real payment was being made to satisfy God’s Holiness and Justicewe don’t know this at all.
Jesus’ cry in agony, “My God, My God why hast Thou forsaken Me?” shows how infinitely awful this part of Jesus’ suffering was or alternatively, He’s quoting the first line of psalm 22which describes how the psalmist feels abandoned by God into the hands of his enemies - and not punishment by God Himself . This was the time when God the father had to turn from His Son who was bearing the sins of the entire human raceagain, dissolution of the Trinity is required for this to happen..

What happened during that time was sufficient to pay for an infinite number of human eternal damnations except of course those who are not elect - since their punishment remains to be carried out - otherwise Hell would be unnecessary - and this flies in the face of the scriptural data that says He did indeed die for the sins of the world. It was more than adequate to pay the required price and satisfy God’s Holy Justice.**but of course, on the other hand God could have simply pardonned / forgiven us since no one is a higher authority than God. He does not need to appeal to a higher authority. ** Jesus paid it all. Those given by God to believe and accept that gift of God’s Redemption are born into God’s family and thereby saved eternally.

 

[judechild]

“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)

In my review, this and the third servant song in Isaiah (53, specifically verses 5-6) give the strongest case for brkn1’s view. The Corinthians passage seems to say that Christ’s innocence of sin made Him the glass which God the Father poured all the sins of the world into, rather than taking the glass and dumping all the sins of mankind out the window. And then in Isaiah 53:6, we have: “We had all gone astray like sheep, each following his own way; But the LORD laid upon him the guilt of us all.” This would at least fit the linguistic defination of vicariousness.

I realize one response will probably be the view that Christ may have been damned if this was the case, but if anyone could please respond specifically to the two Scripture verses, that would be great. I’m afraid this discussion is a bit above me right now, and I’m just trying to hold on.

 

[crisco]

In my review, this and the third servant song in Isaiah (53, specifically verses 5-6) give the strongest case for brkn1’s view. The Corinthians passage seems to say that Christ’s innocence of sin made Him the glass which God the Father poured all the sins of the world into, rather than taking the glass and dumping all the sins of mankind out the window. And then in Isaiah 53:6, we have: “We had all gone astray like sheep, each following his own way; But the LORD laid upon him the guilt of us all.” This would at least fit the linguistic defination of vicariousness.

I realize one response will probably be the view that Christ may have been damned if this was the case, but if anyone could please respond specifically to the two Scripture verses, that would be great. I’m afraid this discussion is a bit above me right now, and I’m just trying to hold on.

the Corinthians passage talking about making Christ ‘sin’ - could be translated ‘sin offering’ which makes more sense and supports the concept of sacrificial nature to the atonement and not penal sub

 

[Robert_in_SD]

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

…unless he was bearing our sins in the same way that the jewish animal sacrifices bore sins. These animals were not being vicariously punished. They were given over to God by an act of obedience, just as Jesus gave over Himself as both High Priest and Victim. Your conclusion is simply not supported by the evidence of Jesus’s death as sacrificial atonement.

brkn1:

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

Yes, He did.

brkn1:

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

Who taught you this? Where is your support that this is what the early Church believed and taught? Or is this some sort of personal revelation to you alone?

brkn1:

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

Do you really believe that the Father “has” to do anything? And again, your reference to the quote is misplaced. Jesus is not being abandoned by the Father. Remember… “Into your hands I commit my Spirit.”

brkn1:

What happened during that time was sufficient to pay for an infinite number of human eternal damnations.

A single blow to the face of God would be more than sufficient to pay an infinite number of human damnations, because the insult to God’s infinite dignity would have been, well, infinite. So - why the bloody sacrifice (in your opinion) if we both now agree that it was not needed to meet the level of punishment required of us?

brkn1:

It was more than adequate to pay the required price and satisfy God’s Holy Justice.

Now you’re speaking as if the price paid was a ransom, as opposed to a vicarious penal substitution. I’m confused. First you say He suffered our punishment. Then you say He paid a price? Which do you mean? Can you at least acknowledge that these terms are speaking of the Atonement in different ways.

brkn1:

Jesus paid it all.

That’s not in dispute. What’s being disputed is what He paid… what the “it” was. Sacrifice (Atonement) or Holy Stand In (literal vicarious punishment).

brkn1:

Those given by God to believe and accept that gift of God’s Redemption are born into God’s family and thereby saved eternally.

This raises at least two other topics (predestination and eternal security/OSAS) that are not on point. Let’s stick to your original topic - i.e. what Catholics believe about Christ’s action as our sin-bearer during the Passion.

Peace,
Robert

 

[brkn1]

…unless he was bearing our sins in the same way that the jewish animal sacrifices bore sins. These animals were not being vicariously punished. They were given over to God by an act of obedience, just as Jesus gave over Himself as both High Priest and Victim. Your conclusion is simply not supported by the evidence of Jesus’s death as sacrificial atonement.

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

Do you really believe that the Father “has” to do anything? And again, your reference to the quote is misplaced. Jesus is not being abandoned by the Father. Remember… “Into your hands I commit my Spirit.”

Abraham pointed to the Father’s role in the sacrifice of Isaac. Abraham did not have to follow through, but his willingness to do so in faith pointed to the Father as actually doing so.
Spiritual death is not to be confused as being the same thing as physical death. Eternal spiritual death (separation from God) will be the worst part of Hell for the damned.
Jesus’ did not have to suffer eternal spiritual death, when He suffered in our place as the Sin-Bearer. He did have to experience a time of it, before it was finished. The value of that time was infinitely more than equal to what all mankind’s penalty would be. That temporary separation was the worst part of His sufferings. He had/has never experienced any separation before or after that time on the Cross. His prior realization that this would be what was to happen was what caused Him to be “sore amazed” and in sorrow while praying in the Garden. The perspiring of blood was not the result of fear of any physical pain etc that some say. The love between the Father and Son is so perfectly infinite, that any even temporary separation is worse than all physical and emotional pain that an infinite number of humans could suffer.
Jesus was not “play-acting on our part”, as your Catechism seems to imply, when He said, “My God, My God, Why hast Thou forsaken Me?”. Jesus meant every word of that cry in agony for Himself.
Why did Jesus beg the Father to let the cup pass from Him? To say that it was just because of a natural human aversion or His “horror that death represented for His human nature”(612) is to cheapen and insult the courage and voluntary suffering of our Perfect Redeemer.

A single blow to the face of God would be more than sufficient to pay an infinite number of human damnations, because the insult to God’s infinite dignity would have been, well, infinite. So - why the bloody sacrifice (in your opinion) if we both now agree that it was not needed to meet the level of punishment required of us?

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

Now you’re speaking as if the price paid was a ransom, as opposed to a vicarious penal substitution. I’m confused. First you say He suffered our punishment. Then you say He paid a price? Which do you mean? Can you at least acknowledge that these terms are speaking of the Atonement in different ways.

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

 

[John7]

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

I’m not too versed on this topic, but isn’t it that the wages of sin is death ? just death?

…the wages of sin is death
not…the wages of sin is the wrath of God

thanks

 

[kotek]

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

Abraham pointed to the Father’s role in the sacrifice of Isaac. Abraham did not have to follow through, but his willingness to do so in faith pointed to the Father as actually doing so.
Spiritual death is not to be confused as being the same thing as physical death. Eternal spiritual death (separation from God) will be the worst part of Hell for the damned.
Jesus’ did not have to suffer eternal spiritual death, when He suffered in our place as the Sin-Bearer. He did have to experience a time of it, before it was finished. The value of that time was infinitely more than equal to what all mankind’s penalty would be. That temporary separation was the worst part of His sufferings. He had/has never experienced any separation before or after that time on the Cross. His prior realization that this would be what was to happen was what caused Him to be “sore amazed” and in sorrow while praying in the Garden. The perspiring of blood was not the result of fear of any physical pain etc that some say. The love between the Father and Son is so perfectly infinite, that any even temporary separation is worse than all physical and emotional pain that an infinite number of humans could suffer.
Jesus was not “play-acting on our part”, as your Catechism seems to imply, when He said, “My God, My God, Why hast Thou forsaken Me?”. Jesus meant every word of that cry in agony for Himself.
Why did Jesus beg the Father to let the cup pass from Him? To say that it was just because of a natural human aversion or His “horror that death represented for His human nature”(612) is to cheapen and insult the courage and voluntary suffering of our Perfect Redeemer.

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

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

Thank You brkn1! You have faithfully and accurately explained the real and true nature of the Atonement. When I was still an RC I posted on this forum about this same subject and either got 1. Vague answers or 2. The revulsion you see here towards Penal Vicarious Substitution by some posters, when I asked a similar question sometime ago there were more who rejected that Doctrine. This is probably the most important and crucial Christian Doctrine after Justification, as a matter of fact one’s view of the Atonement will affect how one views Justification and Soteriology in general. The view of the Atonement that you have is exactly what I believe. May Our Lord Bless you for your posts here.

As I studied Catholic teachings and Dogma (I wanted to be a Catholic Apologist) so no one can tell me I “misunderstand” what the Catholic Church teaches. I approached my study with a decidedly Catholic bias, and the more I prayed, the more I studied Church Dogma, Church History, read and listened to Catholic Apologists and watched them debate non-Catholics the more I realised that what the Roman Church taught was wrong. Of course I read what Protestants taught in order to understand how to"refute" their positions. You know the more I studied and compared what the Roman Church taught with what they taught the more I saw that the Protestant side was more faithful to the Biblical witness. The more I studied Church history and the early Church Fathers the more I saw how Rome invented many of its Dogmas with no basis in Church History, the Fathers or the Bible.

 

[crisco]

The victim animal could not and was not giving its obedience in the ritual sacrifices. The animals were only symbolically bearing sin, pointing to the future Messiah Who would actually bear our sin. Paul explained that the shed blood of those animals could never remit sins. It was the saving faith in the coming Messiah represented by those sacrificed animals that saved ‘on credit’ those required, at that time, to obey in faith the Jewish animal sacrifices. The animal shedding of blood saved no one, but Jesus’ promised shed Blood did. To equate Jesus’ Sacrifice as being, in any form, on the same level as the animal sacrifice is to miss the point altogether.
**I would agree with much of this - except for the relevance of your opening line. The obedience of the animal is not the point - it’s the obedience of the one who offers the animal - the sinner in this case. Jesus’ Sacrifice is the fulfillment of their obedience. Jesus acts in perfect obedience to the will of the Father by offering Himself as the ultimate sacrifice. The Jews were not so much offering the sacrifices as to remove sins, but as a demonstration that they were serious about the repentence they had already showed, as well as confirming the status of the covenant with God. At any rate, I’m not sure how this all refutes Robert’s point about the OT sacrifices?? **

Abraham pointed to the Father’s role in the sacrifice of Isaac. Abraham did not have to follow through, but his willingness to do so in faith pointed to the Father as actually doing so.
Spiritual death is not to be confused as being the same thing as physical death. Eternal spiritual death (separation from God) will be the worst part of Hell for the damned in other words, their just punishment.
Jesus’ did not have to suffer eternal spiritual death, when He suffered in our place as the Sin-Bearer. He did have to experience a time of it, before it was finished. The value of that time was infinitely more than equal to what all mankind’s penalty would be. ** And this is simply unsubstantiated. If He must suffer my punishment - He must suffer for the same duration = forever. Either you’re eternally separated from God, or you’re not - there is no in betweenThat temporary separation was the worst part of His sufferings. ** Once again you’re divying up the Trinity - which goes against its fundamental nature He had/has never experienced any separation before or after that time on the Cross.Once again, this is extra-scriptural speculation - there is simply no evidence from the texts to directly support this notion His prior realization that this would be what was to happen was what caused Him to be “sore amazed” and in sorrow while praying in the Garden. The perspiring of blood was not the result of fear of any physical pain etc that some say. The love between the Father and Son is so perfectly infinite, that any even temporary separation is worse than all physical and emotional pain that an infinite number of humans could suffer.This is your assertion. However, the idea of a Roman death by crucifixtion would be extremely sorrowful to contemplate
Jesus was not “play-acting on our part”, as your Catechism seems to imply, when He said, “My God, My God, Why hast Thou forsaken Me?”. Jesus meant every word of that cry in agony for Himself.
Why did Jesus beg the Father to let the cup pass from Him? To say that it was just because of a natural human aversion or His “horror that death represented for His human nature”(612) is to cheapen and insult the courage and voluntary suffering of our Perfect Redeemer.On the other hand, I find it reassuring that Jesus was so fully human that He actually felt the emotions and feelings that we do, and yet still went to the Cross.

This insults the infinite love of the Father for His Son. If a simple blow to the face was sufficient to satisfy God’s perfect Holiness and Justice, then an infinitely loving Father would have gladly found another way to bypass the cup, as Jesus requested.And God could have - why He chose not to is a matter of speculation - I would favour the idea that there is something valuable and noble in suffering under injustice - as the context of 1Peter2 makes clear

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

not necessarily - the idea of a ransom is that payment is made - whether it’s through punishment or some other means (i.e., sacrifice of something of infinite value given to God). I don’t think anyone is arguing regarding the substitutionary nature of the actions of our Redeemer - just the mechanism of how He stood in a place where we couldn’t and offered something we could never offer in order to propitiate/expiate

 

[crisco]

Thank You brkn1! You have faithfully and accurately explained the real and true nature of the Atonement. When I was still an RC I posted on this forum about this same subject and either got 1. Vague answers or 2. The revulsion you see here towards Penal Vicarious Substitution by some posters, when I asked a similar question sometime ago there were more who rejected that Doctrine. This is probably the most important and crucial Christian Doctrine after Justification, as a matter of fact one’s view of the Atonement will affect how one views Justification and Soteriology in general. The view of the Atonement that you have is exactly what I believe. May Our Lord Bless you for your posts here.

As I studied Catholic teachings and Dogma (I wanted to be a Catholic Apologist) so no one can tell me I “misunderstand” what the Catholic Church teaches. I approached my study with a decidedly Catholic bias, and the more I prayed, the more I studied Church Dogma, Church History, read and listened to Catholic Apologists and watched them debate non-Catholics the more I realised that what the Roman Church taught was wrong. Of course I read what Protestants taught in order to understand how to"refute" their positions. You know the more I studied and compared what the Roman Church taught with what they taught the more I saw that the Protestant side was more faithful to the Biblical witness. The more I studied Church history and the early Church Fathers the more I saw how Rome invented many of its Dogmas with no basis in Church History, the Fathers or the Bible.

That’s odd, I’m going in the opposite direction. The more I study both sides of the penal sub debate, the more I see how the Catholic position is most fully in harmony with scripture. And when I post questions on the board, I’m always impressed with the articulation of many of the posters that contribute.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

The victim animal could not and was not giving its obedience in the ritual sacrifices.

My comment was addressing the obedience of the jewish priest and jewish person offering the sacrifice. If the animal was being offered as a sin offering, then it was given the sins of the offeror to bear as part of the ritual sacrifice - that’s what the imposition of hands by the offeror or priest was for. Christ’s sacrifice is foreshadowed by (not equal to) these animal sacrifices and is the one real Sacrifice from which sins are truly forgiven. But you are missing the lesson of these earlier jewish animal sacrifices. They were never understood to be literal vicarious punishments. The animals are slain to complete an atoning sacrifice, not because they are receiving God’s wrath in place of the penitent offeror. They are a substitutionary atonement taking the place of punishment, but not undergoing punishment vicariously. Christ’s sacrifice should be seen the same way - as an offering pleasing to God offered by Christ the High Priest for the sins of all of His people. Christ (as high priest) certainly does not receive vicarious punishment, nor does Christ merely *receive *God’s punishment of us vicariously as the Paschal Sacrifice. He is offered to God *in place of * that punishment that is rightly due to us.

brkn1:

The animals were only symbolically bearing sin, pointing to the future Messiah…

Even assuming they were not “really” bearing the sins of the offeror, under your understanding of “sacrifice” they should have been brutally mauled and tortured to death, yet they were not. Perhaps this is because the jewish ritual sacrifice, which pointed to Christs Sacrifice, was NOT merely vicarious punishment of the victim for sins of the offeror, but an atonement by way of an offering to take the place of actual punishment.

brkn1:

To equate Jesus’ Sacrifice as being, in any form, on the same level as the animal sacrifice is to miss the point altogether.

If you think that’s what I did then it is you who missed my point. The animal sacrifice foreshadows Christ’s Atoning Sacrifice. I never said it was “on the same level” so don’t create straw-man arguments.

brkn1:

…Spiritual death is not to be confused as being the same thing as physical death… He did have to experience a time of it, before it was finished.

How can God be separated from/abandoned by Himself?

brkn1:

The value of that time was infinitely more than equal to what all mankind’s penalty would be. That temporary separation was the worst part of His sufferings.

Again, how can God be separated from/abandoned by Himself?

brkn1:

The perspiring of blood was not the result of fear of any physical pain etc that some say.

For one who is not Divine, this is so. But Christ was God. His very nature does not allow for separation from Himself.

brkn1:

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

I did not write my own Catechism, as *you *apparently have done (figuratively at least). I look to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Nor do I suggest that Jesus was play-acting for us. That conclusion is implicit in *your * theology.

brkn1:

Why did Jesus beg the Father to let the cup pass from Him? To say that it was just because of a natural human aversion… is to cheapen and insult the courage and voluntary suffering of our Perfect Redeemer.

No. It is to recognize the fullness of His human Incarnation. He took on a human nature and was thereby confronted with the natural fear of death that all human beings feel. He was dealing with that fear but at all times perfectly submitted His will to the will of the Father.

brkn1:

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

Your statement is true only if His death on the cross was merely a literal vicarious substitution. But I do not hold to that understanding. I understand His sacrificial death as an atonement that was planned from the beginning by the Father, to which the Son willingly submitted. Remember that the triune God is Love. It is this act of giving all to Son who gives all back in atonement that manifests God’s deep love for us.

brkn1:

The ransom and penal substitution are the same thing.

Saying that a thing is so does not make it so.

brkn1:

Jesus paid the required ransom price in our place. He took our place and suffered God’s wrath that we deserved.

No. Jesus paid the ransom so that we would not have to suffer God’s wrath. But that does not mean Christ suffered God’s wrath and abandonment as a vicarious substitute. It means he was the sacrifice that atoned for our sins.

brkn1:

Receiving God’s gift of true faith in what Jesus did for us, as our Substitute, is what saves us. The Gospel is that simple.

Receiving God’s gift of faith (through grace) in what Jesus did for us as our Savior is what saves us.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Thank You brkn1! You have faithfully and accurately explained the real and true nature of the Atonement. When I was still an RC I posted on this forum about this same subject and either got 1. Vague answers or 2. The revulsion you see here towards Penal Vicarious Substitution by some posters, when I asked a similar question sometime ago there were more who rejected that Doctrine. This is probably the most important and crucial Christian Doctrine after Justification, as a matter of fact one’s view of the Atonement will affect how one views Justification and Soteriology in general. The view of the Atonement that you have is exactly what I believe. May Our Lord Bless you for your posts here.

As I studied Catholic teachings and Dogma (I wanted to be a Catholic Apologist) so no one can tell me I “misunderstand” what the Catholic Church teaches. I approached my study with a decidedly Catholic bias, and the more I prayed, the more I studied Church Dogma, Church History, read and listened to Catholic Apologists and watched them debate non-Catholics the more I realised that what the Roman Church taught was wrong. Of course I read what Protestants taught in order to understand how to"refute" their positions. You know the more I studied and compared what the Roman Church taught with what they taught the more I saw that the Protestant side was more faithful to the Biblical witness. The more I studied Church history and the early Church Fathers the more I saw how Rome invented many of its Dogmas with no basis in Church History, the Fathers or the Bible.

How strange. My experience has been to the contrary. I find the most logical arguments see the Atonement as a sacrifice and not merely a vicarious penal substitution. Perhaps your journey has been to the contrary because you first accepted the notion of imputed righteousness, and reasoned from that point into vicarious penal substitution? Whereas in my own case I seriously considered but ultimately rejected the notion of imputed righteousness and so do not bring that perspective with me to the topic at issue as a presumption.

Whatever the reason, welcome back to the forums.

Peace,
Robert

 

[kotek]

How strange. My experience has been to the contrary. I find the most logical arguments see the Atonement as a sacrifice and not merely a vicarious penal substitution. Perhaps your journey has been to the contrary because you first accepted the notion of imputed righteousness, and reasoned from that point into vicarious penal substitution? Whereas in my own case I seriously considered but ultimately rejected the notion of imputed righteousness and so do not bring that perspective with me to the topic at issue as a presumption.

Whatever the reason, welcome back to the forums.

Peace,
Robert

No actually it was the fact that I saw Penal Substitution as what the Scriptures teach. From there I realised that there was NOTHING I could do to either earn or KEEP Salvation. That the ONLY thing needed was to have real Faith in order to be “Justified”, a Faith which includes trust in Jesus as my Saviour who died for me in my place bearing my sin and guilt and appeasing God’s wrath at me for my sin. That Faith includes trust, hope, and love for Jesus because He loved me enough to take my place and suffer God’s wrath for my sin on my behalf. So I bristle and get upset when your Church tells me that after Jesus suffered and died for me that I still have to suffer torture and punishment in Purgatory to expiate for my sins, I see Purgatory as a colossal insult to the One who loved me and gave Himself for me.

 

[crisco]

No actually it was the fact that I saw Penal Substitution as what the Scriptures teach. From there I realised that there was NOTHING I could do to either earn or KEEP Salvation. That the ONLY thing needed was to have real Faith in order to be “Justified”, a Faith which includes trust in Jesus as my Saviour who died for me in my place bearing my sin and guilt and appeasing God’s wrath at me for my sin. That Faith includes trust, hope, and love for Jesus because He loved me enough to take my place and suffer God’s wrath for my sin on my behalf. So I bristle and get upset when your Church tells me that after Jesus suffered and died for me that I still have to suffer torture and punishment in Purgatory to expiate for my sins, I see Purgatory as a colossal insult to the One who loved me and gave Himself for me.

I see. So you think that God will allow you into His presence even though you’re not ontologically righteous? You don’t think He’ll need to make you Holy somehow in order to be in the hereafter? And someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think Catholics believe they actually do anything either to earn or keep the salvation that is freely given - it’s all God’s doing - He provides the Grace, He’s the purifier in the end as well.

 

[Godfollower]

No actually it was the fact that I saw Penal Substitution as what the Scriptures teach. From there I realised that there was NOTHING I could do to either earn or KEEP Salvation. That the ONLY thing needed was to have real Faith in order to be “Justified”, a Faith which includes trust in Jesus as my Saviour who died for me in my place bearing my sin and guilt and appeasing God’s wrath at me for my sin. That Faith includes trust, hope, and love for Jesus because He loved me enough to take my place and suffer God’s wrath for my sin on my behalf. So I bristle and get upset when your Church tells me that after Jesus suffered and died for me that I still have to suffer torture and punishment in Purgatory to expiate for my sins, I see Purgatory as a colossal insult to the One who loved me and gave Himself for me.

You do understand, don’t you, that Purgatory is not a way to earn Heaven? Our entry into Heaven is given freely by the grace of God, thanks to the sacrifice of Jesus. Our sins were fully paid for by Jesus when He endured the Crucifixion and rose again from the dead. If we did in His grace, we will be granted entry into Heaven.

Now, those of us entering Heaven who are still imperfectly purified (e.g., subject to venial sin, concupiscence, etc.) will be cleansed before entering Heaven. That’s all that Purgatory is: we aren’t earning Heaven or paying some final price; we’re just being cleansed before we can go in.

It’ll probably hurt, either physically or emotionally; but that’s just a consequence of the removal of our tendency to sin. It’s just like a doctor fixing a broken bone is helping us, but it hurts; the pain isn’t some sort of price to pay (“I’d heal you, but you aren’t willing to feel pain, so I can’t do it”), it’s just a natural consequence of the healing process.

And it’s very clear from Scripture and Tradition that your belief “That the ONLY thing needed was to have real Faith in order to be ‘Justified’, a Faith which includes trust in Jesus as my Saviour who died for me in my place bearing my sin and guilt and appeasing God’s wrath at me for my sin” is incorrect: faith without works is dead.

Performing good works isn’t a way to earn salvation; it’s the way you accept God’s grace. As Jesus said, those who feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and imprisoned, etc. will enter Heaven, while those who do not will not. Not because every sandwich you give to the poor or whatever gets you a “point” toward salvation; but because doing His will is required to accept His grace.

Those who sit around saying “Jesus’ sacrifice saved me, so all I have to do is believe in Him and I will enter Heaven” will be told “Not all who say to me ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter Heaven, but only those who do the will of My Father in Heaven.”

If you look into the matter more deeply, I think you will find that most Protestants also believe in Purgatory; they just don’t call it that. We all agree that “Nothing impure can enter Heaven;” you can either (1) agree with the Catholic Church that this means that everyone who enters Heaven will either (A) be clean already (e.g., through baptism immediately before death) or (B) be cleansed just before entering; or (2) come up with the various convoluted explanations that a lot of Protestant preachers invent to avoid saying the same thing.

 

[cothrige]

Robert in SD:

I just wanted to thank you for posting on this thread. Your statements on the atonement have been extremely clear and well considered. I came close to responding to various comments by people here, but you kept saying just what I would say, only so much better.

Thank you.

cothrige

 

[Love_is_Patient]

Robert in SD:

I just wanted to thank you for posting on this thread. Your statements on the atonement have been extremely clear and well considered. I came close to responding to various comments by people here, but you kept saying just what I would say, only so much better.

Thank you.

cothrige

I second this.

Love is Patient

 

[Philthy]

I’m afraid this discussion is a bit above me right now, and I’m just trying to hold on.

Here’s the truly important point: brkn1 claimed that “Christ as our sin-bearer is not the RCC gospel” and now that it has become apparent that this allegation is patently false, brkn1 has moved to a very nuanced discussion of another topic: the exact form that sin bearing took. Was it a precise substitution or was it atonement? Ultimately it matters not a bit in the context of the original slander made - but brkn1 apparently does not have the decency to admit that.
And just for the record, what is the point of adding “vicarious” to the concept of substitute sin-bearer?