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

[Daedelus76]

It really depends on what you mean by “sin-bearer”.

If you mean that God was angry at mankind, and needed somebody to vent his wrath on - “penal substitution”, actually that is a Reformed Protestant idea. Certainly, in some sense God willed the Cross to happen, but the “why” of it is very important. The Calvinists tried to make it sound like God somehow “needs” to punish people.

The oldest understanding of the Cross is “Christus Victor”. You can still hear it alot in the Eastern liturgies, but also in some parts of the Western piety. It’s emphasized more in the East. This is a non-rational, intuitive understanding. Basicly, Christ submits to the power of sin and death, and in doing so, destroys the power of sin and death by “spoiling” death with his holiness and purity. In this way, God descends to the human condition to lift it up to divinity. This isn’t a legalistic belief, though, like “satisfaction” or “penal substitution”.

I’m very much into a Christus Victor understanding more than penal substitution being how I look at it. Even the Catholic understanding of a “victim” isn’t quite the same, and the RCC has even been getting away from the medieval piety that saw the Mass as some kind of propitiation of God’s wrath (to keep the angry God at arms length). It’s actually rather simplistic and un-spiritual. The Cross has much more to do with the believer being united in Christ, in his Passion and death, than it does with some kind of legal transaction or propitiating an angry God.

 

[Daedelus76]

. Jesus didn’t die on the cross because God needed him to in order to forgive us. WE needed him to die on the cross in order to make us open to receiving and believing.

Exactly. Jesus took the wrath of humanity on himself, the rebellion against God, against the message that Jesus was teaching. He didn’t take God’s anger. If humans weren’t sinners, Jesus wouldn’t have died, because all the motivations for his death were based in evil- there was nothing just about his death at all. God allowed it to happen for his own purposes, and IMO, speculating on those purposes too much will get people caught in a particular viewpoint and miss the big picture. The important thing is, in the words of St. John Chrysostom, “Christ is risen and Death is abolished. Christ is risen and life is freed”.

Some of the Eastern fathers even suggested that the Incarnation would have happened anyways, even if there was no Fall. If you focus on the Incarnation, it all makes sense. You can’t see the Incarnation as totally seperate. Throughout Jesus life, he was making sacrifices of himself for the people of Israel, and for the whole world, he was giving himself away to heal the world.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Daer Gabriel,Paulicians
tt=94
A dualistic heretical sect, derived originally from Manichaeism. The origin of the name Paulician is obscure. Gibbon (Decline and Fall, liv), says it means “Disciples of St. Paul” (Photius, op. cit., II, 11; III, 10; VI, 4). Their special veneration for the Apostle, and their habit of renaming their leaders after his disciples lend some colour to this view. On the other hand, the form (Paulikianoi, not Paulianoi) is curious; and the name seems to have been used only by their opponents, who held that they were followers of Paul of Samosata (Conybeare, op. cit., cv). The birthplace of their founder evidently suggested this; but there is no connection between their doctrine and his. Photius relates that a certain Manichee woman, named Kallinike sent her two sons Paul and John to Armenia to propagate this heresy; the name is corrupted from Pauloioannoi (Friedrich op. cit., I). The existence of such persons is now generally denied. The latest authority, Ter-Mkrttschian (Die Paulicianer, 63), says the name is an Armenian diminutive and means “followers of little Paul”, but does not explain who little Paul may be. It occurs first in the Acts of the Armenian Synod of Duin in 719, a canon of which forbids any one to spend the night in the house of “the wicked heretics called Pollikian” (Ter-Mkrttschian, 62).

Doctrine
The cardinal point of the Paulician heresy is a distinction between the God who made and governs the material world and the God of heaven who created souls, who alone should be adored. They thought all matter bad. It seems therefore obvious to count them as one of the many neo-Manichaean sects, in spite of their own denial and that of modern writers (Ter-Mkrttschian, Conybeare, Adeney, loc. cit.; Harnack, “Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschicte”, Tübingen, 1909, II, 528). But there is a strong Marcionite element too. They rejected the Old Testament; there was no Incarnation, Christ was an angel sent into the world by God, his real mother was the heavenly Jerusalem. His work consisted only in his teaching; to believe in him saves men from judgment. The true baptism and Eucharist consist in hearing his word, as in John 4:10. But many Paulicians, nevertheless, let their children be baptized by the Catholic clergy. They honoured not the Cross, but only the book of the Gospel. They were Iconoclasts, rejecting all pictures. Their Bible was a fragmentary New Testament. They rejected St. Peter’s epistles because he had denied Christ. They referred always to the “Gospel and Apostle”, apparently only St Luke and St. Paul; though they quoted other Gospels in controversy.

The whole ecclesiastical hierarchy is bad, as also all Sacraments and ritual. They had a special aversion to monks. Their own organization consisted first of the founders of their sect in various places. These were apostles and prophets. They took new names after people mentioned by St. Paul, thus Constantine called himself Silvanus; apparently they claimed to be these persons come to life again. Under the apostles and prophets were “fellow-workers” (synechdemoi) who formed a council, and “notaries” (notarioi), who looked after the holy books and kept order at meetings. Their conventicles were called, not churches, but “prayer-houses” (proseuchai). They maintained that it was lawful to conceal or even deny their ideas for fear of persecution; many of them lived exteriorly as Catholics. Their ideal was a purely spiritual communion of faithful that should obliterate all distinctions of race. Their enemies accuse them constantly of gross immorality, even at their prayer-meetings. One of their chief leaders, Baanes, seems to have acquired as a recognized surname the epithet “filthy” (ho ryproz). They would recognize no other name for themselves than “Christians”; the Catholics were "Romans (Romaioi), that is, people who obey the Roman emperor, as the Monophysites called their opponents Melchites. Harnack sums them up as "dualistic Puritans and Individualists and as “an anti-hierarchic Christianity built up on the Gospel, and Apostle, with emphatic rejection of Catholic Christianity” (Dogmengeschichte, II 528).

Since Gibbon the Paulicians have often been described as a survival of early and pure Christianity, godly folk who clung to the Gospel, rejecting later superstitions, who were grossly calumniated by their opponents. Conybeare (op. cit.) thinks they were a continuation of the Adoptionists. Dr. Adeney calls them “in many respects Protestants before Protestantism” (The Greek and Eastern Churches, 219). This idea accounts for the fact that the sect has met among modern writers with more interest and certainly more sympathy than it deserves.

Love of Christ Nancy

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Daer Gabriel,Paulicians
tt=94
A dualistic heretical sect, derived originally from Manichaeism. The origin of the name Paulician is obscure. Gibbon (Decline and Fall, liv), says it means “Disciples of St. Paul” (Photius, op. cit., II, 11; III, 10; VI, 4). Their special veneration for the Apostle, and their habit of renaming their leaders after his disciples lend some colour to this view. On the other hand, the form (Paulikianoi, not Paulianoi) is curious; and the name seems to have been used only by their opponents, who held that they were followers of Paul of Samosata (Conybeare, op. cit., cv). The birthplace of their founder evidently suggested this; but there is no connection between their doctrine and his. Photius relates that a certain Manichee woman, named Kallinike sent her two sons Paul and John to Armenia to propagate this heresy; the name is corrupted from Pauloioannoi (Friedrich op. cit., I). The existence of such persons is now generally denied. The latest authority, Ter-Mkrttschian (Die Paulicianer, 63), says the name is an Armenian diminutive and means “followers of little Paul”, but does not explain who little Paul may be. It occurs first in the Acts of the Armenian Synod of Duin in 719, a canon of which forbids any one to spend the night in the house of “the wicked heretics called Pollikian” (Ter-Mkrttschian, 62).

Doctrine
The cardinal point of the Paulician heresy is a distinction between the God who made and governs the material world and the God of heaven who created souls, who alone should be adored. They thought all matter bad. It seems therefore obvious to count them as one of the many neo-Manichaean sects, in spite of their own denial and that of modern writers (Ter-Mkrttschian, Conybeare, Adeney, loc. cit.; Harnack, “Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschicte”, Tübingen, 1909, II, 528). But there is a strong Marcionite element too. They rejected the Old Testament; there was no Incarnation, Christ was an angel sent into the world by God, his real mother was the heavenly Jerusalem. His work consisted only in his teaching; to believe in him saves men from judgment. The true baptism and Eucharist consist in hearing his word, as in John 4:10. But many Paulicians, nevertheless, let their children be baptized by the Catholic clergy. They honoured not the Cross, but only the book of the Gospel. They were Iconoclasts, rejecting all pictures. Their Bible was a fragmentary New Testament. They rejected St. Peter’s epistles because he had denied Christ. They referred always to the “Gospel and Apostle”, apparently only St Luke and St. Paul; though they quoted other Gospels in controversy.

The whole ecclesiastical hierarchy is bad, as also all Sacraments and ritual. They had a special aversion to monks. Their own organization consisted first of the founders of their sect in various places. These were apostles and prophets. They took new names after people mentioned by St. Paul, thus Constantine called himself Silvanus; apparently they claimed to be these persons come to life again. Under the apostles and prophets were “fellow-workers” (synechdemoi) who formed a council, and “notaries” (notarioi), who looked after the holy books and kept order at meetings. Their conventicles were called, not churches, but “prayer-houses” (proseuchai). They maintained that it was lawful to conceal or even deny their ideas for fear of persecution; many of them lived exteriorly as Catholics. Their ideal was a purely spiritual communion of faithful that should obliterate all distinctions of race. Their enemies accuse them constantly of gross immorality, even at their prayer-meetings. One of their chief leaders, Baanes, seems to have acquired as a recognized surname the epithet “filthy” (ho ryproz). They would recognize no other name for themselves than “Christians”; the Catholics were "Romans (Romaioi), that is, people who obey the Roman emperor, as the Monophysites called their opponents Melchites. Harnack sums them up as "dualistic Puritans and Individualists and as “an anti-hierarchic Christianity built up on the Gospel, and Apostle, with emphatic rejection of Catholic Christianity” (Dogmengeschichte, II 528).

Since Gibbon the Paulicians have often been described as a survival of early and pure Christianity, godly folk who clung to the Gospel, rejecting later superstitions, who were grossly calumniated by their opponents. Conybeare (op. cit.) thinks they were a continuation of the Adoptionists. Dr. Adeney calls them “in many respects Protestants before Protestantism” (The Greek and Eastern Churches, 219). This idea accounts for the fact that the sect has met among modern writers with more interest and certainly more sympathy than it deserves.

Love of Christ Nancy

Gabriel of 12;

I hear what your saying, but: St. Augustine a Roman Catholic, came from the Manichean heresy, who defeated them on their own turf. I dont see any corrolation from heretical groups with Catholicism, only that the Catholic Church was the only Christian community in existance to confront heretics and heresies even from among her Eastern or Greek Catholic churches from where most of these heretical groups derived from not from the Roman (Western) Catholic church.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Sin Bearer, by my understanding of Scripture, means that Jesus Christ actually took our sins upon Himself, even though He was innocent of any sin on His part. Jesus Christ then suffered the penalty of our sin laid upon Him during the one Sacrifice of the Cross. This suffering was at the hand of both man and His Father, Who had to punish Jesus, in our deserved place, if Jesus was to pay the penalty for our sin as our Redeemer. Jesus substituted Himself for us to pay the penalty God’s Holiness and Justice required. That is the Gospel according to Scripture. (Isaiah 53) makes sense according to this explanation of Christ as our Sin-Bearer.
It really matters about how you understand what Jesus did for you.

Gabriel of 12;

brkn1? tell me, were your mortal sins that you committed in your life today, the actual sins Jesus Christ paid for on the Cross? I hope your answer is “Yes”.

The time frame from when Jesus actually paid the price for the sins of the World, and paid for your sins in 2009, is what appears to be confusing you about the Catholic church’s teaching, when the Catholic church proclaims “Once and for all”. Now inorder for the biblical teaching to make sense from how the Catholic church makes known this reality, is from the description of how and when this occurrs in time. Grasping the mystery of the Eucharist and why Jesus instituted this sacrifice according to the order of Melchizedek, makes his “once and for all” sacrifice made present from eternity in the Mass. Making the forgiviness of sins possible for all ages.

Maybe if you can connect the dots here of the eternal/present, the Catechism will be much clearer of how, when and why Jesus took upon himself the sins of the world and nailed them to the cross, not man, but by the will of God. Just when It appeared you grasped this mystery, you fall off by stating Man and God punished Jesus for our sins. This is not a biblical teaching but your own interpretation. We are splitting hairs here.

 

[marymol]

Apologies if this has already been brought up and clarified .

Ephes. 2 - ’ you were dead in your transgressions …following the rules of the power of the air , the spirit that is now at work in the disobediant …But God who is rich in mercy , because of the great love He had for us, brought us to life with Christ …for we are His handiwork , created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance …’

The anxiety of those who worry about the disobediance factor is understandable and being misled about the ‘good works’ too !

It truly is a great blessing to have The Church there to guide and shepherd …and to clearly inform the flock when they have strayed too far by following the ’ power of the air ’ and have lost their trust …such as by being in mortal sin …

Good to be guided and taught how the Royal Prietshood is to carry out its duties - if the Old Testament is any ’ type’ for same , we know how much The Father cares about that most preciouspriestly role for His children , in union with our Lord , the High Priest !

May His mercy be on us all , to heal the divisions so that His Holy Spirit would enlighten and rule our hearts and minds .

May the intercession of our Bl.Mother , whom The Father had prepared in advance for the good work of being a Mother to us all be with us too ( and we in turn , for the good work of being her good children ) !

 

[brkn1]

brkn1;5236798:

Sin Bearer, by my understanding of Scripture, means that Jesus Christ actually took our sins upon Himself, even though He was innocent of any sin on His part. Jesus Christ then suffered the penalty of our sin laid upon Him during the one Sacrifice of the Cross. This suffering was at the hand of both man and His Father, Who had to punish Jesus, in our deserved place, if Jesus was to pay the penalty for our sin as our Redeemer. Jesus substituted Himself for us to pay the penalty God’s Holiness and Justice required. That is the Gospel according to Scripture. (Isaiah 53) makes sense according to this explanation of Christ as our Sin-Bearer.
It really matters about how you understand what Jesus did for you.

Gabriel of 12;

brkn1? tell me, were your mortal sins that you committed in your life today, the actual sins Jesus Christ paid for on the Cross? I hope your answer is “Yes”.

The time frame from when Jesus actually paid the price for the sins of the World, and paid for your sins in 2009, is what appears to be confusing you about the Catholic church’s teaching, when the Catholic church proclaims “Once and for all”. Now inorder for the biblical teaching to make sense from how the Catholic church makes known this reality, is from the description of how and when this occurrs in time. Grasping the mystery of the Eucharist and why Jesus instituted this sacrifice according to the order of Melchizedek, makes his “once and for all” sacrifice made present from eternity in the Mass. Making the forgiviness of sins possible for all ages.

Maybe if you can connect the dots here of the eternal/present, the Catechism will be much clearer of how, when and why Jesus took upon himself the sins of the world and nailed them to the cross, not man, but by the will of God. Just when It appeared you grasped this mystery, you fall off by stating Man and God punished Jesus for our sins. This is not a biblical teaching but your own interpretation. We are splitting hairs here.

You are correct in pointing out the error of my statement that allowed the suffering of Jesus at man’s hand to be any sort of punishment for the sin that Jesus was bearing for us. I did not intend that meaning. I believe that the Triune God allowed that suffering and humiliation against Jesus by man to show just how infinitely awful sin is. Man was allowed to humiliate and even physically murder his own Loving Creator and Holy God. There was and there will never be a greater crime that man could commit. Man was showing how completely degenerate and perfectly dead in sin man had become as a result of the first Adam’s original sin. The unjust hatred, unholy mockery, and outright rejection of their God could not be made a worse background, in which to contrast the Perfect Love and Innocent Holiness of the promised Messiah that they murdered. The messy and bloody sacrifices of God’s previously prescribed sacrifices, before Jesus’ actual coming to offer the one and only real Sacrifice, all pointed to the awfulness of sin. All of the blood shed before Jesus did not actually remove the sins of the participants. The shed blood of the animals only attoned for sin in a temporary way, so that God could pass over their sin as they looked in saving faith for the final Redeemer that could actually remit all of their sin by His shed Blood in that one Sacrifice. They were saved on credit, by the faith they had in the future True Sacrifice promised by God. Those offerings were constant and required a priesthood as clearly prescribed by God in Scripture. Paul said that Jesus was not actually being sacrificed in those animal sacrifices, or Jesus would have been suffering since the world began.
Jesus can not now be said to be in the “sacrifice of the Mass” or the same claims that Paul spoke against would have to apply.
God’s gift, through God the Holy Spirit, of saving and regenerating faith in the one true Sacrifice by my Holy Redeemer, Who took my deserved place, bearing my sin in His body, and suffered the penalty for my sin, at the hand of the Holy Father is sufficient to cleanse all the sins of me and all those given to so believe in the Redeemer’s one Sacrifice by God’s sovereign Will.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

**God’s gift, through God the Holy Spirit, of saving and regenerating faith in the one true Sacrifice by my Holy Redeemer, **Who took my deserved place, bearing my sin in His body, and suffered the penalty for my sin, at the hand of the Holy Father is sufficient to cleanse all the sins of me and all those given to so believe in the Redeemer’s one Sacrifice by God’s sovereign Will.

Gabriel of 12;

Now I think we are getting to the heart of the matter; You have touched on two items dealing with the forgiveness of sin. We can agree that man is in need of redemption from the original fall of Adam. That is why Jesus is labeled as the “antitype” of Adam from sacred scripture. I trust we agree that Jesus paid the penalty of our sins, to redeem us back to the Father.

The first item is entry into the kingdom of God (see John 3;3-12) first you have to be born “Anothen” from above from the baptismal waters. This baptism of Jesus in the Holy Spirit “regenerates” and “saves you now” (please see Titus 3:5, 1 Peter3:20-21).Baptism the Catholic church calls the first sacrament of intitiation into the Kingdom of God. Now if Jesus was crucified 2000 years ago, how is it that baptism removes all stain of actual sin and original sin today? How are your sins removed 2000 years later since the crucifixion, if you were not there in the first century?

The second item deals not with those entering into the Kingdom of God, but for the Holy Nation, of the Holy Priesthood of Jesus Christ, yes, for those already in the Kingdom of God. The “Mass” is a “thanksgiving” = “Eucharistein” from where we get the word “Eucharist” celebration. Offering to God, thanksgiving, first fruits and a sacrifice not made with human hands but made by the Word of God made flesh in his body, blood to be present always before God’s people making atonement for our sins. This is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world standing in heaven as though slain.This once and for all sacrifice Jesus made for the sins of the world, he gave us for all ages past,present and future from eternity.

This Blessed Sacrament is the summit of our Catholic faith, because it truly is the body,blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ himself. Without this “do this in remembrance of me” Eucharist in the Mass. This is the only sacrifice being offered to God eternally that is perfect and acceptible a fulfillment from the prophet;

Malachi 1:11
For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.

If Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets? Where else can you find among all the nations today a sacrifice being offered and a pure offering to God’s name? Where else will you find God’s great name among the nations except in the “once and for all” eternal sacrifice that comes to us as the true bread from heaven in the Eucharist. In order for a believer to sustain his Christian Journey on earth across the threshold of death into life eternal with the Father in heaven.

John 6:53
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

Now the Eucharist in the form of bread and cup of blessing according to St. Paul from 1Corinthians 10:16
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
17
Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

We do this as commanded by Jesus, and to proclaim his death until he returns
1Corinthian 11:26
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

Do not believe that Catholics resacrifice Jesus, as of old, where the high priest had to sacrifice daily in the temple. The “once and for all” sacrifice Jesus made because he defeated death in his resurrection, and ascended into heaven with his marked wounded body, to eternally offer his sacrifice from eternity, yet made present in time in Jesus words “Do this in memory of me”. In other words I am made present to all peoples and all ages in his Eucharist, but the catch is, you have to eat his body, and drink his blood.

A third item that concerns the “work out our salvation with fear and trembling” is for the already born from above believer, in the sacrament of Confession. Confession is for the already saved, not for those coming into the Kingdom. Now this sacrament (which is the divine parting grace to the believer) is where the repentative sinner claims the blood sacrifice of Jesus in time in the sacrament of confession. This peace is made between God and the penitent, so that the penitent does not have to leave his offering on the altar of God to make peace with his brother.

I mention all these here, so that you might grasp these mysteries of God, and may come to understand that Catholics rejoice in the blood of the lamb, for his blood washes us clean as white as snow. And Catholics claim to the lamb of God Jesus always, for our greatest fear is not the wrath of God, but a Catholics greatest fear is losing God, thank God for the ministry of “Reconciliation” or confession.

You see, Catholics dont deny what Jesus did on the cross for our sins, Catholics practice and worship God for Jesus dieing for our sins and we proclaim his atoning death until he returns.

 

[Philthy]

After reading your church’s Catechism on this subject many times, it is apparent that your church does not believe that our sin was placed upon Jesus as part of the one and only Sacrifice for our sins on the Cross.

Thats because sins can’t be “placed” anywhere.

 

[Cinette]

Cinette, I included brkn1’s last post in this reply. It is obvious at least to me, that brkn1 really has your best interest in mind and that he really wants to understand and wants you to understand the truth as set forth in scripture and for you to write this post, which has nothing to do with the OP, and is designed for no other reason but to malign and humiliate is reprehensable and repugnant in my estimation. I beleive it departs from the purpose of this forum and is certainly counter to the teachings of Jesus and I think you should be ashamed of yourself.

brkn1, I can understand your reason for quitting this thread, However I would ask that you give it one last chance, if for no other reason than Cinette and everyone subscribing to this thread needs your insightful responses. Lets pray that they and everyone open themselves to the working of God’s Holy Spirit

Maybe you are right and perhaps I might have overacted. I will look into it and if you are right I shall apologise. This is going to be a heavy week for me but I will try to find the time.

Oh no - brkn1 has quit the thread? No, that is not good. Please brkn1. come back - if I made a mistake I apologise and will take another look.

God bless all
Cinette

 

[Philthy]

brkn1;:

After reading your church’s Catechism on this subject many times, it is apparent that your church does not believe that our sin was placed upon Jesus as part of the one and only Sacrifice for our sins on the Cross.

I find your terminology a little confusing. Sins cannot be “placed” anywhere. You mean the punishment or guilt for the sins was placed on Christ, right? “We had all gone astray like sheep, each following his own way. But the lord laid upon him the guilt of us all.” Isaiah 53:6

Your Catechism uses the scriptural terms “He shall bear their iniquities”, but it always redefines what is meant by that as meaning something other than actually bearing our sin literally. Christ does not have our sin placed upon Him as our Substitute, according to your church.

I’m not familiar with that term being “defined” by Scripture in the sense that you are claiming it is. Does it mean that Christ will bear our rejection and crucifixion of him, or does it mean He will be our atonement for sin or what?

Sin Bearer, by my understanding of Scripture, means that Jesus Christ actually took our sins upon Himself, even though He was innocent of any sin on His part. Jesus Christ then suffered the penalty of our sin laid upon Him during the one Sacrifice of the Cross.

Again, not sure what it means to “take our sins upon Himself” unless you are referring to the sins committed against Him personally during his ministry.

Jesus substituted Himself for us to pay the penalty God’s Holiness and Justice required. That is the Gospel according to Scripture. (Isaiah 53) makes sense according to this explanation of Christ as our Sin-Bearer. It really matters about how you understand what Jesus did for you.

I think this is the crux of the thread. It has been suggested by Catholics that Christ’s sacrificial atonement for us was actually greater than taking on the punishment owed for the sins of all humanity; and your position is that he took on exactly that punishment. I dont quite get why its such a big deal from your perspective and you didnt explain why it “really matters”.

I don’t see any point in going further on the subject, since it the thread seems to have been taken over by those who prefer to insult than to really contribute to understanding the subject. I want to thank those who did otherwise.

The point is to deepen our understanding of what Christ did, does and will do for all of us and in that way rejuvenate our commitment to loving Him through love of each other.
I’m sorry if any of my posts offended you. I lost my temper at the suggestion that Catholics somehow dont believe that Christ suffered the penalty to pay for our sins. Please forgive me…I will be better behaved.

 

[Philthy]

I was thinking about the whole “Christ took our sins upon himself” concept and I asked myself a question: “Does that mean that I cannot commit a sin that Christ hasn’t already atoned for?” The answer is, no I cant commit a sin that Christ hasnt already atoned for. OK, but what does that mean? Does that mean that my sins dont matter? I can no longer offend God through sin? That would seem to be the logical conclusion if all my sins are atoned for. It would almost be rude not to commit those sins since Christ went to the trouble of atoning for them - it could almost be viewed as unfaithful! But then I hear Paul saying, “Shall we sin that grace may abound all the more? Of course not!” And I begin to think that others have already been down this “my sins dont matter because of what Christ has done” road - and its a bad road. Paul is trying to make that clear. And the author of Hebrews goes into the same topic in Chapter 10:
v10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
v14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
v17-18 then he adds, “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.” Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
v22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
v23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.
v24 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works,
v26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.
v28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?

It can be confusing: somehow all of our sins have been atoned for, but if we, after having received forgiveness through Christ, “spurn the Son of God…and …outrage the Spirit of Grace” we are in for “worse punishment” than one who has broken the law of Moses. That cant be good. Does it have anything to do with this thread though? I think that depends on why bkn1 introduced the topic. Where are you going with the “Christ is our vicarious sin-bearer” discussion? I ask this genuinely. Why is it so critical to distinguish between Christ’s infinitely atoning sacrifice (as understood by some) and Christ’s vicarious sin-bearing sacrifice (your understanding of the nature of the sacrifice)? Are you concerned of an error of faith? What is it that “really matters” about this distinction that made you start the thread?

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

HI Philthy, what i think they are trying to say is Christ died for our sins and we are forgiven through the blood covering of the Lamb,Christ Jesus But we are to still confess our sins one to another or as we do in confession. In the Protestant church or Nom denominations they do not confess to anyone or each other, Just to God. Now perhaps they misinterprate the churches teachings and some times the Question is good to ask How does your Trinity work? is Christ and God one? or is Christ and God seperate endities?Also it would be good for them to quote where in our Catechism does it state Jesus did not bear our sins and transgressions?And i would like to know,why they don’t believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist? He lives and is present in the bread and wine.He ment it when he said this is my body,he ment it so much alot of them(his followers) left the group because they couldn’t understand, the real mystery of the Sacrement Christ was talking about. Love of Christ Nancy

 

[rtconstant]

I was thinking about the whole “Christ took our sins upon himself” concept and I asked myself a question: “Does that mean that I cannot commit a sin that Christ hasn’t already atoned for?” The answer is, no I cant commit a sin that Christ hasnt already atoned for. OK, but what does that mean? Does that mean that my sins dont matter? I can no longer offend God through sin? That would seem to be the logical conclusion if all my sins are atoned for. It would almost be rude not to commit those sins since Christ went to the trouble of atoning for them - it could almost be viewed as unfaithful! But then I hear Paul saying, “Shall we sin that grace may abound all the more? Of course not!” And I begin to think that others have already been down this “my sins dont matter because of what Christ has done” road - and its a bad road. Paul is trying to make that clear. And the author of Hebrews goes into the same topic in Chapter 10:
v10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
v14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
v17-18 then he adds, “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.” Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
v22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
v23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.
v24 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works,
v26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.
v28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?

It can be confusing: somehow all of our sins have been atoned for, but if we, after having received forgiveness through Christ, “spurn the Son of God…and …outrage the Spirit of Grace” we are in for “worse punishment” than one who has broken the law of Moses. That cant be good. Does it have anything to do with this thread though? I think that depends on why bkn1 introduced the topic. Where are you going with the “Christ is our vicarious sin-bearer” discussion? I ask this genuinely. Why is it so critical to distinguish between Christ’s infinitely atoning sacrifice (as understood by some) and Christ’s vicarious sin-bearing sacrifice (your understanding of the nature of the sacrifice)? Are you concerned of an error of faith? What is it that “really matters” about this distinction that made you start the thread?

In the mass we know that when the words are spoken and transubstantiation takes place that the bread and the wine step out of linear time and are present at the crucifixion. It would make sense that our sins now are felt by Christ then. So when we are obedient to God and follow the Words of Christ we lessen the burden that He bore then. As Christians we at least intellectually understand that Christ at the crucifixion bore the sins of the world past, present, and future. So what we do now does impact His sacrifice then, just as His sacrifice then saves us now. Its really kind of mind blowing when you start to think about it.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

In the mass we know that when the words are spoken and transubstantiation takes place that the bread and the wine step out of linear time and are present at the crucifixion. It would make sense that our sins now are felt by Christ then. So when we are obedient to God and follow the Words of Christ we lessen the burden that He bore then. As Christians we at least intellectually understand that Christ at the crucifixion bore the sins of the world past, present, and future. So what we do now does impact His sacrifice then, just as His sacrifice then saves us now. Its really kind of mind blowing when you start to think about it.

You are so good!:yup: And you are Loved Nancy

 

[brkn1]

We still have a major disagreement on what happened during the One Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross.

Your Catechism claims that: (598)… “sinners were the author and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured.” 389

“Nor did demons crucify Him; it is you who have crucified Him and crucify Him still, when you delight in your vices and sins.” 392

Some recent posts in this thread seem to confirm this viewpoint.
Christ as our ‘Sin-Bearer’ becomes a Christ that “bears our rejection and crucifixion of Him”, as Plithy asked.

What I have been trying to point out, in opposition to this viewpoint, is what I find in Scripture, where Christ actually bore all of our sin in His body as our Substitute Redeemer. The price that Jesus had to pay for that sin, which He bore for us, was the Father punishing Him, as if Jesus were the guilty one with all of those sins.
This is a very different meaning for “Sin-Bearer”, as I’m sure you can see.

I will be busy with some business for a few days, but I would like to further explain how Scripture supports my understanding, when I get a chance.

 

[Techno2000]

We still have a major disagreement on what happened during the One Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross.

Your Catechism claims that: (598)… “sinners were the author and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured.” 389

“Nor did demons crucify Him; it is you who have crucified Him and crucify Him still, when you delight in your vices and sins.” 392

Some recent posts in this thread seem to confirm this viewpoint.
Christ as our ‘Sin-Bearer’ becomes a Christ that “bears our rejection and crucifixion of Him”, as Plithy asked.

What I have been trying to point out, in opposition to this viewpoint, is what I find in Scripture, where Christ actually bore all of our sin in His body as our Substitute Redeemer. The price that Jesus had to pay for that sin, which He bore for us, was the Father punishing Him, as if Jesus were the guilty one with all of those sins.
This is a very different meaning for “Sin-Bearer”, as I’m sure you can see.

I will be busy with some business for a few days, but I would like to further explain how Scripture supports my understanding, when I get a chance.

In which church will one find a CRUCIFIX… in your church,or the Catholic church ?

 

[Chanticleer]

brkn1

Do you believe God the Father requires the physical punishment of Jesus in order for salvation to be accomplished along with His death and Resurrection ?

I sense in your mind that you believe if Jesus doesn’t suffer physical punishment in our place at the hands of the Father then God the Father is being contradictory in His word
or will which would be impossible. I’m not sure I’m wording this right. I sense it’s important for you to believe God the Father must be perceived as punishing Jesus in order for God the Father to remain consistent and just as God . Is this correct?

Could you elaborate on the physical punishment requirement of God the Fathers will in your way of thinking? What does atonement/sacrifice have to do with experiencing it as physical punishment? The important part of the sacrifice is the purity and holiness of the victim not whether it’s punished enough in the process.

Would the death of Jesus be less salvific if he hadn’t been whipped, mocked and crowned with thorns before the crucifixtion?(As if crucifixtion isn’t enough punishment by itself.) Or better yet, what if Jesus had been given a drug to numb the pain of the crucifixtion ? Would his death and resurrection still be salvific?

Catholics believe the sin of Adam merited the punishment of death and loss of grace but not physical punishment other then what we experience here and now as pointed out in Genesis. Animal sacrifice did not require abuse of the animal before the sacrifice .

Romans 6:23 The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Thanks to you and the others who are contributing to this dialogue .I am learning much. I appreciate the civility and charity of the participants as well .

God bless us all

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

brkn1

Do you believe God the Father requires the physical punishment of Jesus in order for salvation to be accomplished along with His death and Resurrection ?

I sense in your mind that you believe if Jesus doesn’t suffer physical punishment in our place at the hands of the Father then God the Father is being contradictory in His word
or will which would be impossible. I’m not sure I’m wording this right. I sense it’s important for you to believe God the Father must be perceived as punishing Jesus in order for God the Father to remain consistent and just as God . Is this correct?

Gabriel of 12;

I am not answering for brkn1 but You give a deep insight into this mystery; A couple of things come to mind here. One God states from scripture “I myself will provide the sacrifice” when the angel steadied the hand of Abraham from sacrificing his own son.

Second, God commanded Moses to strike the “Rock” once, and Paul states “and the Rock was Christ”, what interests me here is that God tells Moses after the first strike to the “Rock” now speak to the “Rock”, this has Eucharistic connotations when Jesus consecrated his disciples as his priest to (“do this in rememberance of me”) speak to the bread and wine so that they become his body and blood (in his authority of binding and loosing on earth as he does in heaven). Zechariah 13:7-9 speaks about the “Sword” the “Word” states “will strike the shepherd, and his flock will flee” and God makes what is left his own.

The Trinitarian mystery comes to light here in the striking of the shepherd, especially when Jesus states on the cross, “My God, My God why have you forsaken me”, but we know this is a victory Psalm. I can see why private biblical interpretation can get very confusing, and can lead one to cling only to part of the Truth, without knowing that God wills all come to the full knowledge of truth and be saved.

Forgive me for interrupting your deep insight into this topic, your discernment here triggered alot of mystical biblical teachings.

Peace be with you

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

BRKN1, Leviticus 16:22 says that the goat for Azazel “shall bear all their iniquities upon him” (RSV); and Isaiah 53:12 describes the promised Saviour with the words “He bore the sin of many.” Does that not make the goat for Azazel a symbol of Christ?

It’s sometimes useful to examine the historical origin of theological ideas. This is one of those cases.
An ancient Christian tradition interprets the goat for Azazel as representing Christ or an aspect of His work. For instance, Justin Martyr (c. 100-165) interpreted it as a symbol of the second coming of Christ; Tertullian (c. 160-220) saw in it a reference to the human nature of Christ and His humiliation; and for Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) the scapegoat was Christ ascending to heaven, loaded with our sins. Interestingly, Origen (c. 185-254) equated the scapegoat with Azazel, whom he took to be a fallen angel. Obviously, there was no harmony in the early Christian interpretation of the scapegoat, and views presented were mostly of a speculative nature, lacking exegetical analysis.
During the Reformation the ritual of the scapegoat was used in the formulation of the doctrine of the atonement, and that continues to be the case among some Protestants. However, today scholars tend to believe that Azazel was a demonic figure in the Old Testament, making it more difficult to interpret the ritual under discussion as a type of Christ’s atoning work.
The application of the symbol of the scapegoat to Christ is commonly based on two arguments. The first is the use of the phrase “to bear sin,” which also applied to Jesus. The second is taken from Hebrews 13:12, where it is indicated that Jesus “suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood” (RSV). It is then pointed out that the scapegoat was taken outside the Israelite camp. This last argument is not persuasive in that there is no symbolic correspondence between Christ offering His blood outside the city as a sacrifice and the scapegoat that was sent alive to the wilderness. Besides, contextually Hebrews is dealing with the regular sin offering and not with the goat for Azazel.
In the study of the Scriptures we should not only take into consideration the use of specific words but also the combination of a few words to communicate an idea that one of those words by itself could not express. The phrase “to bear sin/iniquity” appears to be a legal expression used to indicate that the person bearing sin is legally guilty, responsible for the sin committed, and liable to punishment (see Ex. 28:43; Lev. 19:8; 20:17). Sometimes God is the subject of the phrase (God bears the sin of His people), meaning that He assumes responsibility for it and forgives the repentant sinner (Num. 14:18; Ps. 25:18).
In the context of the sanctuary, sinners are described as bearing sin (Lev. 5:1, 2, 5, 6), and it was in that state that they brought their sacrifices to the Lord. They were responsible for their own sins and liable to divine punishment. They could be delivered from that condition through a sacrifice. The priest used the sacrifice to make atonement, and the individual was forgiven (verses 6, 10). Sin was transferred to the sacrificial victim, and it died in his or her place. This is exactly what Christ did for us (Isa. 53:4, 12).
There is a peculiarity of this phrase that we must notice. It is practically never used to express the idea of carrying sin from one place to another. “To bear sin” means to be or become responsible for sin and liable to punishment. This is what we call the absolute use of the phrase. The only exception to this usage is found in Leviticus 16:22, where it is followed by a clause of destination. In that case it means “to carry sin,” not “to bear sin” (NIV: “The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a solitary place”). The goat is not bearing the sin of the people vicariously, but simply carrying it to the wilderness; returning it to Azazel, the originator of sin and uncleanness. This use of the phrase is not the same as we found in the daily services of the sanctuary, and it does not point to Christ as the one who bore our sin as our substitute.
Love of Christ: