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

[brkn1]

QUOTE: I would like to get a clear explanation from some Catholics about exactly how Jesus Christ was the Sin-Bearer during His Sacrifice on the Cross. They seem to want to be indirect in their answers, which indicates that they might not know or believe that Jesus was a believing sinner’s Substitute Redeemer that paid the full sin-penalty for those given by God to believe in Christ’s Sacrificial Work of Redemption, according to the Gospel.

brkn1,
It seems we understand your question. We answer it. We give you what you’re looking for, regardless of whether you agree with us or not. Then, for some crazy reason, you ask the question again!

Catholics know Jesus Christ is THE REDEEMER. He was sinless and paid for our sins. He is “The Lamb of God Who Takes Away the Sins of the World.” He is the Sin Bearer.

I’m a practicing Catholic and this is what I believe, every day, with every ounce of my being, and I know I stand with all the popes in believing this.

Peace of Christ
http://ts3.images.live.com/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=800258927118&id=6cadc6c9e2eab90259543e9efbc09902

I am glad that you believe that Jesus Christ was the Sin-Bearer Who paid God’s required penalty as our Redeemer on the Cross.

 

[brkn1]

The Catholic Church has been teaching exactly that for almost 2,000 years.

Catechism of the Catholic Church para. 615.

In case you’re wondering what the Catechism is, it’s an official publication of the Church that summarizes Church teaching. It’s not an infallible document, but it’s pretty authoritative, and it’s stuffed full of footnotes that can help you find out why a particular statement is in it. But the direct point right now is that, if you want to know what the Church teaches, that’s a good place to start. The full Catechism begins here.

Paragraph 603 says:“Jesus did not experience reprobation as if He Himself had sinned.”
If “Jesus did not experience reprobation” in our place, then there can be no reason for sin to be placed upon Him. Without Jesus being punished by the Father, as if He was actually a sinner as we are, there can be no claim that God’s justice against our sin was payed for by Jesus. Jesus being given into the hands of sinners to die will not pay the redemption price commanded in Scripture.

 

[jimmy]

One question I have for you bkrn1 is what you mean when you say Christ bore our sins. Did God simply declare Christ, who was sinless to be guilty of our sins and punish Him accordingly? If that is the case then God is unjust. How can God punish an innocent man rather than guilty men and remain just? A divine balance in which the suffering of Christ outweighs the anger of God at our sins is nonsense which contradicts the very nature of God.

I propose a Cyrillian Christology in which Christ took upon Himself the sinful human nature and even though He never committed sin Himself He died for the humanity which He had assumed and redeemed us on the cross and in the ressurrection. He, an innocent man, suffered the consequences of our sins and He saved us from our certain destruction.

To speak of your quote, ‘in His own body’ simply refers to the fact that He took on our sinful human nature and redeemed us through His passion.

 

[brkn1]

Imputation is not Catholic teaching - the same doctrinal result is attained by other means, such as emphasising the solidarity of Jesus with all mankind. Emphasis on His Messianic Kingship can do this too.​

Can anything be added to His work ? Of course not

A danger I think I see is that we may be trying to recommend ourselves to God by emphasising how orthodox or how Biblical we are. But a Gospel of Grace ignores that.

I agree that nothing can be added to Christ’s work and that it is by Grace that we are saved.
The emphasizing of “the solidarity of Jesus with all mankind” is difficult for me to see as a method of salvation. The first thing that comes to my mind, when you say that, is Jesus’ prayer: “I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me.”

 

[jimmy]

Paragraph 603 says:“Jesus did not experience reprobation as if He Himself had sinned.”
If “Jesus did not experience reprobation” in our place, then there can be no reason for sin to be placed upon Him. Without Jesus being punished by the Father, as if He was actually a sinner as we are, there can be no claim that God’s justice against our sin was payed for by Jesus. Jesus being given into the hands of sinners to die will not pay the redemption price commanded in Scripture.

Jesus took on the sinfulness of man since He took on the full human nature in its fallen state and not in some idealized form. He suffered the condemnation of our sins as one of us even though He was sinless. We are recieved into the ‘body of Christ’ through His Grace and consequently we share in His Glory.

If you reject what I have said in this and the last post then I challenge you to tell me why God became man. He could have saved us through some other fashion surely if it was about satisfying the vengence of God. What makes Christ’s death any different than the sacrifices of lambs and bulls in the OT?

 

[brkn1]

One question I have for you bkrn1 is what you mean when you say Christ bore our sins. Did God simply declare Christ, who was sinless to be guilty of our sins and punish Him accordingly? If that is the case then God is unjust. How can God punish an innocent man rather than guilty men and remain just? A divine balance in which the suffering of Christ outweighs the anger of God at our sins is nonsense which contradicts the very nature of God.

I propose a Cyrillian Christology in which Christ took upon Himself the sinful human nature and even though He never committed sin Himself He died for the humanity which He had assumed and redeemed us on the cross and in the ressurrection. He, an innocent man, suffered the consequences of our sins and He saved us from our certain destruction.

To speak of your quote, ‘in His own body’ simply refers to the fact that He took on our sinful human nature and redeemed us through His passion.

It had to be an infinitely perfect and innocent Substitute to bear our sins upon Himself and then suffer, in our place, the full penalty required by God’s Perfect Justice. Jesus voluntarily took upon Himself the penalty of all who would believe in His one Perfect Sacrifice on the Cross. Everything in both the Old and New Testament pointed to Jesus as the Sacrificial Lamb of God, Who would die in our place to pay God’s required penalty (price) for our sin. That is what a Redeemer does for those He loves.

 

[brkn1]

What makes Christ’s death any different than the sacrifices of lambs and bulls in the OT?

Christ was both Perfect Man and Perfect God. That makes Him an Infinite Being, which makes the Sacrifice He made an Infinitely Perfect Sacrifice.

 

[jimmy]

It had to be an infinitely perfect and innocent Substitute to bear our sins upon Himself and then suffer, in our place, the full penalty required by God’s Perfect Justice. Jesus voluntarily took upon Himself the penalty of all who would believe in His one Perfect Sacrifice on the Cross. Everything in both the Old and New Testament pointed to Jesus as the Sacrificial Lamb of God, Who would die in our place to pay God’s required penalty (price) for our sin. That is what a Redeemer does for those He loves.

I don’t disagree with what you say here as long as you don’t view it in terms of a divine balance in which God’s vengence toward us is outwayed by the suffering and death of Christ. That might satisfy a sadistic man who simply wants someone to suffer (irregardless of who it is) but it doesn’t satisfy God’s justice. It is just the same as the fact that you wouldn’t call a judge in our legal system just who decided to punish an innocent man for the crime of homicide in place of the actual murderer.

 

[Walden]

the full penalty required by God’s Perfect Justice.

Certainly, the wages of sin is death. But wouldn’t the “full penalty” be eternal separation from God? Basically damnation?

This is a bona fide question…that’s where I’m having trouble understanding where you’re coming from.:banghead:

 

[jimmy]

Christ was both Perfect Man and Perfect God. That makes Him an Infinite Being, which makes the Sacrifice He made an Infinitely Perfect Sacrifice.

What makes Him becoming human important though? He was infinite before the incarnation. The incarnation itself should be adequate then since through the incarnation He became a servant like us since He was infinitely perfect. So why the death of Christ when the incarnation itself is an infinitely perfect sacrifice of God since although He was in the form of God He took on the form of a slave and became like us (Phil.2)? The nominalists used to say that a donkey could have been crucified if God had declared it so. They reduced everything to the will of God so if God declared that the crucifixion of a donkey satisified His justice then it was so.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Paragraph 603 says:“Jesus did not experience reprobation as if He Himself had sinned.”
If “Jesus did not experience reprobation” in our place, then there can be no reason for sin to be placed upon Him.

It wasn’t - Jesus is the true “Man of Sin”, of Whom the MoS in 2 Thess. 2 is a pale shadow, because He is the Messianic King. As King, He is answerable to God for the sins of His People.​

Without Jesus being punished by the Father, as if He was actually a sinner as we are, there can be no claim that God’s justice against our sin

I think this overlooks the paradox of the Atonement. What’s this “if” ? There is no “if” about it - for He is “made sin”. He is the Chief of Sinners, in a way Paul could never hope to be. Adam was righteous & became a sinner - Jesus was sin, & became our Righteousness.​

Surely the whole point is that, as C.S. Lewis pointed out, the Atonement is not just - it may be a lot of things, but there is nothing just about it. It’s unfathomably unjust, because it is gracious, which means it is an act of Love. What have legal claims to do with that ? For “love is the fulfilling of the Law”. Or doesn’t God play by His own rules ? If the Passion is any guide, He most definitely does. Justice is a wholly inadequate category for the Atonement.

The Passion shows the “jealousy” of God in action, it shows God being crucified, becoming a curse, being made sin, being made hateful to God, an abomination in God’s sight. To say Jesus sinned would be wretchedly inadequate - He** became** sin, Even the devil is a sinner, and is not sin - Jesus is therefore worse than satan by far. And yet Jesus is infinitely holy. ISTM He is both, & that it is hopeless to think that our minds can possibly reconcile these ideas. The only way we can hope to understand is if we can reconcile God’s passionate hatred of sin with the Father’s delight in the Son Whom He loves. And unless one is God, how is that possible ?

was payed for by Jesus. Jesus being given into the hands of sinners to die will not pay the redemption price commanded in Scripture.

What is being taught, may depend on how the parts of the sentence are stressed. The words​

• “…as if He Himself had sinned”

may be intended to show in what sense

• “Jesus did not experience reprobation…”

• but it does not deny that Jesus experienced reprobation in some other sense, given that He was innocent.

 

[PaulDupre]

Do you (and the RCC) really believe that Jesus Christ died on the Cross as our Sin-Bearer?
I am talking about the Gospel of Jesus Christ having a believer’s sin imputed ( layed in blame) upon Christ’s own body during the one Sacrifice of the Cross. The Gospel goes further to say that Christ then received the penalty for that sin, which a believing sinner deserved. Christ took a believing sinner’s deserved place on the Cross, as our Substitute Redeemer (penalty-Payer).

Do you believe the above statements I just made?

Of course, we believe exactly that. Did someone tell you we don’t? You’ve been lied to.

 

[PaulDupre]

Christ was both Perfect Man and Perfect God. That makes Him an Infinite Being, which makes the Sacrifice He made an Infinitely Perfect Sacrifice.

We Catholics believe exactly that. Did someone tell you we don’t? You’ve been lied to.

 

[PaulDupre]

Paragraph 603 says:“Jesus did not experience reprobation as if He Himself had sinned.”
If “Jesus did not experience reprobation” in our place, then there can be no reason for sin to be placed upon Him. Without Jesus being punished by the Father, as if He was actually a sinner as we are, there can be no claim that God’s justice against our sin was payed for by Jesus. Jesus being given into the hands of sinners to die will not pay the redemption price commanded in Scripture.

He who was sinless took upon Himself our sins, and paid the price for them. That did not in any sense make Jesus personally guilty of our sins. That is just crazy, and a gross misinterpretation of the bible.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I agree that nothing can be added to Christ’s work and that it is by Grace that we are saved.
The emphasizing of “the solidarity of Jesus with all mankind” is difficult for me to see as a method of salvation. The first thing that comes to my mind, when you say that, is Jesus’ prayer: “I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me.”

The only way I can make sense of the “universalist” & the “electing” passages in the NT, is to accept both as equally valid revelation. Intellectually, I can’t reconcile them. Anymore than I can reconcile how Jesus is God & man. But if the Christological doctrine is not impossible to accept, must the soteriology be ?​

As I see it, the solidarity of Jesus with all mankind is a ground for the universal efficacy of His Passion. It’s not a method of salvation, so much as a ground of it. I could probably quote R.C. Kuiper for the universalism, if I looked up “God-Centred Evangelism”.

 

[Godfollower]

Paragraph 603 says:“Jesus did not experience reprobation as if He Himself had sinned.”
If “Jesus did not experience reprobation” in our place, then there can be no reason for sin to be placed upon Him. Without Jesus being punished by the Father, as if He was actually a sinner as we are, there can be no claim that God’s justice against our sin was payed for by Jesus. Jesus being given into the hands of sinners to die will not pay the redemption price commanded in Scripture.

I get the feeling that you’re using these terms in a way we aren’t. What, exactly, are you trying to say?

The Catechism passage you quoted does not say “Jesus did not experience reprobation.” It says “Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned.” The point here is that Jesus did not sin.

The whole point of the Crucifixion is that Jesus voluntarily laid down His life for us. He was not guilty of sin in any way; He was entirely free from sin. Yet He willingly gave up His life to pay for our sins. He took our place, but He didn’t take it as a consequence of some sin He committed; He didn’t deserve to take our place, because He never sinned. He was innocent of any wrongdoing, but He stepped in and took our punishment on Himself. His sacrifice freed us all from the slavery of sin.

 

[brkn1]

Certainly, the wages of sin is death. But wouldn’t the “full penalty” be eternal separation from God? Basically damnation?

This is a bona fide question…that’s where I’m having trouble understanding where you’re coming from.

You are correct in that an unpaid “full penalty” for our sin would be eternal damnation and suffering, of which eternal separation from God is included.

Our lack of human understanding of how Jesus Christ could completely pay this “impossible” price, during His last three hours on the Cross, is the result of our finite human abilities to understand an Infinite God.

The mystery of how an Infinite God made such an “impossible” payment makes far more sense to me than those people who think they can pay any part of the infinite price of the “smallest” sin they might have committed against an Infinite God. The smallest sin against an Infinite God becomes an infinite sin, because of Who it was committed against.

 

[brkn1]

I get the feeling that you’re using these terms in a way we aren’t. What, exactly, are you trying to say?

The Catechism passage you quoted does not say “Jesus did not experience reprobation.” It says “Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned.” The point here is that Jesus did not sin.

The whole point of the Crucifixion is that Jesus voluntarily laid down His life for us. He was not guilty of sin in any way; He was entirely free from sin. Yet He willingly gave up His life to pay for our sins. He took our place, but He didn’t take it as a consequence of some sin He committed; He didn’t deserve to take our place, because He never sinned. He was innocent of any wrongdoing, but He stepped in and took our punishment on Himself. His sacrifice freed us all from the slavery of sin.

The price of paying for our sin required more than Jesus just giving up His life for us. Our eternal punishment would be more than just physically dying on our part, if we are not saved in graced faith of believing that Jesus payed the full deserved price in our place.

 

[brkn1]

He who was sinless took upon Himself our sins, and paid the price for them. That did not in any sense make Jesus personally guilty of our sins. That is just crazy, and a gross misinterpretation of the bible.

“Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us:” (Galatians 3:13)

Christ was not guilty of any sin, but He was made "a curse for us:’’ so that He could pay our deserved penalty for our sin.

 

[brkn1]

The only way I can make sense of the “universalist” & the “electing” passages in the NT, is to accept both as equally valid revelation. Intellectually, I can’t reconcile them. Anymore than I can reconcile how Jesus is God & man. But if the Christological doctrine is not impossible to accept, must the soteriology be ?​

As I see it, the solidarity of Jesus with all mankind is a ground for the universal efficacy of His Passion. It’s not a method of salvation, so much as a ground of it. I could probably quote R.C. Kuiper for the universalism, if I looked up “God-Centred Evangelism”.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ must be the correct gospel, or it becomes “another gospel”, which Paul condemned.
There are many things of God that we can not fully grasp, such as the miracle of Jesus being both God and Man, but we must still accept what Scripture gives us to understand about it.
The only way that our sin could be payed for, is if Jesus paid our penalty in full on the Cross. It is all of Grace, even the part where the Holy Spirit brings us into the saving faith of Christ’ Redeeming Sacrifice and Resurrection.