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

[brkn1]

I am not the one separating the human and divine natures of Christ in my analysis. The Lord’s plan was to lay the iniquity of us all on Christ. And he bore that iniquity (sin). But he did not receive our punishment for it. Instead, he offered His life (He died) as a sacrifice of Atonement.

The sacrifice entailed Christ taking on our sins and freely giving up His life in Atonement for our sins. The sacrifice did not entail Jesus suffering the wrath of God in our place. Our sins were laid upon Him just as the jewish temple sacrifices foreshadowed it. The temple sacrifices did not require that the paschal lamb suffer the punishment due to sin. The sacrifice required the body and blood of the lamb. just as Christ gave his body and blood as a sacrifice, and not to be a whipping boy in our place. Do you not see this yet? You are reading your position into all of these quotes you keep throwing out. They do not support your penal substitute theory.
So what? It was the Father’s plan that those sins be placed on Jesus, just as it was the Father’s plan to institute the Jewish sacrifices of the temple, in which sins were allowed to be placed on the sacrificial animal - according to God’s plan. I fail to understand why you think this is a distinction that makes a difference. It does not support your conclusion that Jesus suffered God’s punishment in our place. It supports the Catholic position, that Jesus gave His life as an act of love, as a sacrifice to Atone for our sins.

Peace,
-Robert

You have firmly established the Catholic position as believing that there is no punishment in Christ’s Sacrifice.

In (Isaiah 53:5), we read “But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed.”
The use of “chastisement” (punishment) in this prophecy disproves the claim of Jesus’ Sacrifice only being an offering for sin. There was punishment also as part of the Sacrifice.

 

[brkn1]

Here is your answer:Hebrews 9:13-14 Lev. 17:11 Jesus was the sacrifice upon the cross.God Bless Nancy

Your use of (Hebrews 9:13-14) seems to forget the previous verses, which are talking about the Jesus’ offering in Heaven as our Great High Priest. It is done and finished. There are no more sacrifices anymore. Jesus can not be crucified anymore either.

The last verse of Hebrews chapter 5 sums it up: “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time WITHOUT SIN unto salvation.”.

 

[guanophore]

Even by your understanding of what happened on the Cross, God the Father could definitely be said to have brought “harm to His Son” by putting Jesus in harm’s way.
The Father gave that “cup” to Jesus.

Yes, the Father does permit suffering. Yet, Jesus freely chose to drink that cup. This cup of suffering was part of God’s plan of redemption for humanity. It emanates from His love, not from a desire to pour out wrath, or to punish Himself for our sins.

The point is that the Trinity is indissoluable. The Father cannot “turn His back” on the Son. This fact is sufficient by itself to demonstrate that the “vicarious penal substitution” model is erroneous.

 

[guanophore]

I’m not sure what you mean by “not mingled.” The Second Person of the Trinity has a divine nature and a human nature. But he is one Person.

How is one’s “nature” separated from one’s Person? What you are saying is inconsistent with the Christian definition of personhood. Christ is one Person with two natures. His natures are part of His Personhood. I’m not sure how a “nature” can take on our sins. But God, as a Person, can “bear our sins” in the sacrificial sense.

It can be said that the Evil one tried to tempt Him and was rebuked… and it can be said that Christ was like us (humans) in all things except sin. In that sense he was more perfectly human than we were, because sin exists as a result of our broken-ness.

No. This is not supported by what scripture teaches, nor is is supported by any early church tradition that I am aware of. Christ bore our sins as a sacrifice. I don’t think it can be said that he somehow internalized those sins. If he had done so, then scripture could not say that He was like us in all things except sin.

Peace,
Robert

Excellent points, Robert. It is clear that the invention of the doctrine of “vicarious penal substitution” emanates from an incomplete understanding of Christianity: The Trinity, the hypostatic union, sin, and redemption.

 

[guanophore]

I brought this up before, but there was no real response.
According to the Catechism of your church:
“598 In her Magesterial teaching of the faith and in the witness of her saints, the Church has never forgotten that ‘sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured.’”

This assessment of our role must mean that your church believes that we are effectively acting as the ‘priest’ in the one Sacrifice of Jesus to save us from our sins.

Yes, brkn1, I did give you a “real response”. I informed you that your reasoning is broken.

You have drawn an erroneous conclusion from the evidence. The fact that we are responsible for the suffering of Christ does not mean that we are the authors or instigators of our own salvation.

Think of it this way. A bullet in the heart or brain can kill a man. To that extent, the bullet can be said to be the author and minister of the persons death. However, there is no case in which that same bullet can bring life. The nature of the bullet lacks this ability. The fact that something can cause suffering and death does not equate to the ability to bring life.

This assessment of our role must mean that your church believes that we are effectively acting as the ‘priest’ in the one Sacrifice of Jesus to save us from our sins

This is simply a false statement. the Church does not believe or teach this. It is a figment of your imagination.

This is the main point of the thread and it defines the difference between us in how Jesus is to be understood as the “Sin-Bearer”.

Is it? According to the OP, it seems that your point in this thread is to level inaccurate allegations toward the Church about what we believe and teach.

 

[guanophore]

New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia LOL Nancy

Thank you Nancy. I hope you will continue to accruately cite your sources this way.

 

[graceandglory]

The RCC does not believe that Jesus Christ took upon Himself our sins on the Cross as the Sin-Bearer.
The RCC does not believe that Christ paid the penalty for those sins He bore upon Himself as the Substitute for us, so that He could redeem us.

The Scripture that I will use to define Jesus Christ as the Sin-Bearer can be found in (1 Peter 2:24-25):
“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.
For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.”

Please explain exactly how you understand (1 Peter 2:24-25), if you do not accept that Jesus Christ is our Sin-Bearer Redeemer?

I believe that you must believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ as our Substitute Sin-Bearer Redeemer, if you are to be saved. There is no other way to salvation.

Well, that’s just loopy. :ehh:
You got your doctrine of Christ as our sin-bearer FROM the Catholic Church!!!

Many “individual” Christians have incomplete understanding of MANY Christian doctrines and MANY parts of Scripture. Christ’s death on the Cross is CHRISTIAN doctrine.

 

[guanophore]

You have firmly established the Catholic position as believing that there is no punishment in Christ’s Sacrifice.

In (Isaiah 53:5), we read “But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed.”
The use of “chastisement” (punishment) in this prophecy disproves the claim of Jesus’ Sacrifice only being an offering for sin. There was punishment also as part of the Sacrifice.

No, brkn. What we have said is that the Father’s motive is not punishment and the pouring out of wrath, or satisfying His “demand for justice”. Of course sin has punishment, but this is the nature of sin. Sin has consequences that are punishing to humanity. It is not God’s will or intention for humanity that we sin (He is not interested in punishing us). We bring punishment upon ourselves by choosing to sin. Jesus bears this upon HIs body on the cross.

We can see this in the creation story. God created mankind in right relationship with Himself. He gave mankind limits to the freedom with which it was created. He informed mankind of the consequences(punishment) for disobedience. Man chose to disobey God, and inherited the punishment, but this was not God’s desire.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

The sacrifice entailed Christ taking on our sins and freely giving up His life in Atonement for our sins. The sacrifice did not entail Jesus suffering the wrath of God in our place. Our sins were laid upon Him just as the jewish temple sacrifices foreshadowed it. The temple sacrifices did not require that the paschal lamb suffer the punishment due to sin. The sacrifice required the body and blood of the lamb. just as Christ gave his body and blood as a sacrifice, and not to be a whipping boy in our place. Do you not see this yet? You are reading your position into all of these quotes you keep throwing out. They do not support your penal substitute theory.

Peace,
-Robert

I must admit that I have been having a hard time understanding the CC’s position as set forth by you and others on this thread that the punishment due us because of sin can somehow be divorced from the sin itself and that Christ paid the price for our sins but somehow that price did not include the punishment due us. You state: “The temple sacrifices did not require that the paschal lamb suffer the punishment due to sin. The sacrifice required the body and blood of the lamb. just as Christ gave his body and blood as a sacrifice, and not to be a whipping boy in our place.” It would be interesting to hear what you think the death of that lamb to be if not a type of the death of Jesus on the cross and as such a substitution for our death.

Rom15:21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

What these verses mean is that through the death of Christ the punishment due us for our sins has been atoned for. This is not obviously talking of the physical death of our bodies because we all die. This is talking of the eternal death due us through sin, because as the life He gives is eternal, so the death that He atoned for is eternal (the second death Rev.2:11, 20:6, 20:14, 21:8)

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

This tells us that the thing that we earn or our wages, or the punishment due us, through our transgressions, is death and this death is contrasted with the gift (gace) of Jesus Christ which is eternal life. The wages we deserve is eternal death. The punishment we deserve is eternal death.The life He gives us through His atoning sacrifice is eternal life. For me this says it all Jesus paid the price for our sins. The price has been paid in full there is nothing that is required of us except that we beleive. Of coarse that belief will naturally evolve into good works. It’s not that works are required for our salvation, but they are a natural evolution of our salvation.

 

[brkn1]

The point is that the Trinity is indissoluable. The Father cannot “turn His back” on the Son. This fact is sufficient by itself to demonstrate that the “vicarious penal substitution” model is erroneous.

Of course there is the ‘little’ problem concerning Jesus asking the Father why the Father had forsaken Him.
Why could not the Father turn away from the humanity of His Son for a period of time?
I agree that the Divinity of the Trinity is indissoluable, but the humanity of Jesus applied only to the Person of Jesus and not to the Father or the Holy Spirit. How can the Father then be said to be indissoluable with Jesus’ humanity?
The logic of your understanding of the Trinity would require both the Father and the Holy Spirit to also be dying along with Jesus on the Cross.

 

[brkn1]

I mistakenly quoted Hebrews 5 as being (Hebrews 9:28) which reads:

“So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time WITHOUT SIN unto salvation.”

I would be interested in how that verse gets explained away, if Jesus was not literally bearing our sin on the Cross in His first appearance.

 

[graceandglory]

I must admit that I have been having a hard time understanding the CC’s position as set forth by you and others on this thread .

Why does it matter to you what guanophore, or you or me or anyone in this forum thinks? If you really want to know clearly what the Catholic Church** teaches**, how these scriptures are to be interpreted, in the 2,000 year history and tradition of the CC, then go to the Catechism and look it up.

Why do you believe your understanding, and your own “personal interpretation” is somehow so much wiser than 2,000 years of wisdom of the CC??? Really?

 

[guanophore]

Well, that’s just loopy. :ehh:
You got your doctrine of Christ as our sin-bearer FROM the Catholic Church!!!

Many “individual” Christians have incomplete understanding of MANY Christian doctrines and MANY parts of Scripture. Christ’s death on the Cross is CHRISTIAN doctrine.

As it turns out, brkn1 conflates the Apostolic Teaching on the atoning, redemptive, sacrificial death of Christ on the cross with a modern heresy that uses the words “vicarious penal substitution”. Since the CC rejects this heresy, and they are conflated in her mind, she erroneously assumed that the Church had not preserved the Apostolic Teaching.

It is actually not uncommon, in ecclesial communities that have departed from the Apostolic faith, and who have embraced doctrines created in the Reformation, to have no clear understanding what the Apostles actually taught.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Your use of (Hebrews 9:13-14) seems to forget the previous verses, which are talking about the Jesus’ offering in Heaven as our Great High Priest. It is done and finished. There are no more sacrifices anymore. Jesus can not be crucified anymore either.

The last verse of Hebrews chapter 5 sums it up: “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time WITHOUT SIN unto salvation.”.

Yes it was the Fathers Will, but it was up to Jesus, and he chose to carry it on his shoulders, just like he carried his cross. he could have refused the cross, he could have pushed the cup away, He could have chose not to come to finish his Fathers works, but HE chose to do the Fathers WILL it was not a COMMAND, or Demmand, but unfinished works (Plan’s of Salvation) to become the supreme sacrifice for all of the earth.PSALMS 96
God Bless Nancy

 

[rtconstant]

It really kind of makes me wonder if those that espouse vicarious penal substitution also punish their own children because they feel wrath against their kids because they broke a rule or because they want to save them from greater pain breaking those rules can bring?

Sin has its own consequences. God saves us not from His wrath, but from wages of sin. Which is physical and spiritual death. Christ’s sacrifice and resurrection allows the grace of God to flow into our lives and transform us. Freeing us from the bondage to sin, and death.

The problem with vicarious penal substitution is that it isn’t really grace. There is no love or grace involved when God is simply saving us from a threat that He himself imposes on us.

 

[guanophore]

I must admit that I have been having a hard time understanding the CC’s position as set forth by you and others on this thread that the punishment due us because of sin can somehow be divorced from the sin itself and that Christ paid the price for our sins but somehow that price did not include the punishment due us.

I can see why you would have a hard time understanding that, since that is not what was said. Jesus’ redemptive, atoning, sacrificial death on the cross paid the penalty, all of it.
The punishment is not “divorced from the sin”. The punishment is the natural outcome of the sin.

As a result of His work on the cross, we are free both from the sin,and from the punishment of it.

It would be interesting to hear what you think the death of that lamb to be if not a type of the death of Jesus on the cross and as such a substitution for our death.

Indeed, the passover Lamb is the type of the sacrifice of Christ who was to come. The Lamb, however, did not “substitute”. The Lamb was sacrificed so that Israel could be spared, just as Jesus is sacrificed, so that we can be spared.

Rom15:21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

What these verses mean is that through the death of Christ the punishment due us for our sins has been atoned for. This is not obviously talking of the physical death of our bodies because we all die. This is talking of the eternal death due us through sin, because as the life He gives is eternal, so the death that He atoned for is eternal (the second death Rev.2:11, 20:6, 20:14, 21:8)

Yes, this is Catholic Teaching. It does not mean that He was our “substitute”, but that He provided atonement.

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

This tells us that the thing that we earn or our wages, or the punishment due us, through our transgressions, is death and this death is contrasted with the gift (gace) of Jesus Christ which is eternal life. The wages we deserve is eternal death. The punishment we deserve is eternal death.

Exactly. Jesus did not accept our punishment. He did not suffer “eternal death”. Instead he atoned for our sins, and set us free from the punishment.

The life He gives us through His atoning sacrifice is eternal life. For me this says it all Jesus paid the price for our sins. The price has been paid in full there is nothing that is required of us except that we beleive. Of coarse that belief will naturally evolve into good works. It’s not that works are required for our salvation, but they are a natural evolution of our salvation.

Yes, this is what the Catholic Church teaches. The only part that does not come from the Apostles is the Reformation idea of “vicarious penal substitution”. We reject this because Jesus paid our penalty in some mysterious way we don’t understand, but we do know did not involve eternal death or separation from the Father.

 

[guanophore]

Of course there is the ‘little’ problem concerning Jesus asking the Father why the Father had forsaken Him.

This is not a problem at all for those who have received the Teaching of the Apostles. As has been pointed out to you previously, this was the standard method for referring to Psalms (quoting the first one or two lines). The Psalms did not have numbers at all until the Catholic Church added them.

Jesus was indicating that the prophetic words of that Psalm were descriptive of his experience.

And, as anyone who has suffered a great deal understands, the human experience of feeling forsaken by God does not equate to actually being forsaken by Him.

Why could not the Father turn away from the humanity of His Son for a period of time?

Because Jesus’ humanity if fused with His Divinity. This is what the hypostatic union means -One Person, two natures. This Dogma was defined by the Church in the third century, in opposition to the Arian and Gnostic heresies. It is not possible to separate His natures - they are fused.

I agree that the Divinity of the Trinity is indissoluable, but the humanity of Jesus applied only to the Person of Jesus and not to the Father or the Holy Spirit. How can the Father then be said to be indissoluable with Jesus’ humanity?

This is the mystery of the incarnation. The divine nature of God was fused with a human person in Jesus.

16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion:

He was manifested in the flesh,
vindicated in the Spirit,
seen by angels,
preached among the nations,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory. 1 Tim 3:16

The logic of your understanding of the Trinity would require both the Father and the Holy Spirit to also be dying along with Jesus on the Cross.

I have no “logic of understanding of the Trinity”. The Trinity, as well as the incarnation, completely defy my own rational abilities. All I know about them is what has been revealed to the Church, and like the other Divine Mysteries, I accept them by faith.

By that the Fath I know that father and the Spirit did not die on the cross.

I mistakenly quoted Hebrews 5 as being (Hebrews 9:28) which reads:

“So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time WITHOUT SIN unto salvation.”

I would be interested in how that verse gets explained away, if Jesus was not literally bearing our sin on the Cross in His first appearance.

Jesus did bear our sin on the cross. That is what we have all been trying to tell you. The assertions you have made in the OP are erroneous.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

You know i believe in truth and equality and I want more answers to this subject of PenalSubstitution from everyone and anyone who can enlighten me on this.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

It would be interesting to hear what you think the death of that lamb to be if not a type of the death of Jesus on the cross and as such a substitution for our death.

I believe it is a type of Jesus’ death on the cross. But I believe that death was a sactificial atonement. The sacrifice of Christ was a substitution for our punishment. BUT that substitution did not require that Christ suffer the wrath of God that was due to us. It required His death, it did not require that Jesus undergo the wrath of God for us. What I have been saying all along is that there is a difference between offering a sacrifice that takes the place of punishment due to us; and substituting an individual to undergo the punishment that we would suffer. Consider the following analogy… A man commits a crime that is punishable by a $1,000 fine or 10 days in jail. He does not have the money, but a friend pays it for him. No one goes to jail. This is the nature of the sacrifice offered by Christ in the Atonement, except the crime is punishable by either “the body and blood of the Lord” or “eternity in hell by the prisoner.” Christ paid the ransom - and we were set free. The manner in which He paid it expresses to all of us the severity of the crime. But it does not mean Christ literally suffered the punishment that was due.
RK:

Rom15:21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Amen!
RK:

What these verses mean is that through the death of Christ the punishment due us for our sins has been atoned for. This is not obviously talking of the physical death of our bodies because we all die. This is talking of the eternal death due us through sin, because as the life He gives is eternal, so the death that He atoned for is eternal (the second death Rev.2:11, 20:6, 20:14, 21:8)

I don’t disagree with this, except to say that the ransom He paid on the cross is much greater than the one-for-one exchange you seem to think it is. The Ransom paid by Christ far exceeds whatever value the punishment due to us may have been worth. But that does not mean the ransom paid was a literal substitution of Christ for our punishment. The problem I have with your penal substitution argument is that you tend to miss the large gap between the enormity of Christ’s sacrifice (The Eternal, Omnipotent, Lord of the Universe-God experienced death on a cross for us!) and the punishment otherwise due, (damnation of a puny race of human beings in one tiny part of God’s immense creation). The ransom far outweighed the penalty, but it was not a literal vicarious punishment.
RK:

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Amen!

This tells us that the thing that we earn or our wages, or the punishment due us, through our transgressions, is death and this death is contrasted with the gift (gace) of Jesus Christ which is eternal life. The wages we deserve is eternal death. The punishment we deserve is eternal death.The life He gives us through His atoning sacrifice is eternal life. For me this says it all Jesus paid the price for our sins.I’m with you to this point.
RK:

The price has been paid in full there is nothing that is required of us except that we beleive. Of coarse that belief will naturally evolve into good works. It’s not that works are required for our salvation, but they are a natural evolution of our salvation.

This is not on point with the original post. I’m happy to address it with you somewhere else.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

You have firmly established the Catholic position as believing that there is no punishment in Christ’s Sacrifice.

The Catholic position, as I understand it, is that Christ was not a mere substitute for a punishment that was inflicted by a vengeful and angry Father/God. But that does not mean Jesus wasn’t punished by those who crucified Him. And it certainly does not mean that He did not suffer and die.

He was pierced (by us) for our transgressions. He was crushed (by us) for our iniquities. The chastisement of *our *peace was upon Him. And by His stripes (inflicted by us), we are healed. Christ took His unjust punishment and lifted it up to God as a sacrifice that paid the penalty for our sins. From my analogy… Christ paid the fine, but was never asked to “do the time.”

Isaiah’s prophecy does not prove that Jesus Christ suffered vicarious punishment by an angry God in our place. Rather, it supports the conclusion that by His sacrificial suffering and death we are healed.

Peace,
Robert