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

[anthony022071]

Edit:

There’s a difference between Jesus bearing our sins and God imputing sins to Jesus.
If God imputed sins to Jesus,he would have been a liar and he would have called into being sins in Jesus that he was not guilty of. If Jesus had a clean conscience,then he could not have had our guilt within him.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Edit:

There’s a difference between Jesus bearing our sins and God imputing sins to Jesus.
If God imputed sins to Jesus,he would have been a liar and he would have called into being sins in Jesus that he was not guilty of. If Jesus had a clean conscience,then he could not have had our guilt within him.

AMEN to that Anthony, God Bless You Nancy

 

[Richard_Kastner]

They are,of course,mentioned in the four gospels. The historical fact is that it was the scribes and Pharisees who imputed sin to Jesus (that is,they charged him with sin) and put him to death. God only allowed for this to happen.

Well, you can call a cat a dog all you want that does not make it a dog. The undeniable fact is that this verse says God made Jesus sin. You can say that it dosen’t say that , but that desn’t make it so.

God made Jesus to be sin in that he allowed Jesus to be put to death like a sinner.

However He did it. It was God that made Jesus to be sin for us.

The literal reading of that passage makes for an absurdity. God would not make someone guilty of sins he did not commit. That would make God an unjust judge. Guilt has to do with one’s conscience (not with punishment) and Jesus’ conscience was clean.

How else would you read it if not literally. Please be specific, because I really don’t see how this could be taken in some symbolic way
Try these on
Heb9: 22And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
23It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

Peter 3:18
18For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

Galatians 3:13
13Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Hebrews 9:12
12Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Christ paid the price for our sins by substituting himself for us. Scripture is clear.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Bible Question: Did Jesus separate Himself from the Father when He died? The reason I am asking this question is because I was told that He was without sin and He died for us. But I was also told that He took all the sin of the world onto Himself, which means that He became sin so that He was the appropriate ‘propitiation’ for our sin debt.

Bible Answer: You have asked two key questions. Here they are: 1) Did Jesus separate Himself from the Father when He died? and 2) Did He become sin?
Did Jesus separate Himself from the Father when He died? Before the physical body of our Lord died on the cross, Jesus cried out,

. . . “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (NASB) Matt. 27:46

Many are confused by this statement. But it is important to understand that Jesus felt distant from God the Father because He took my sin, your sin, and the sin of every man and woman onto Himself when He died on the cross. He paid the penalty for the sins of the world. Jesus did not separate Himself from God the Father when He died. Many people are confused over this event because they fail to remember that Jesus was both God and man. God cannot separate Himself from Himself. But Jesus, the man, can feel separated from God the Father. Since Jesus was a man, He ate food, slept, grew tired, and died. Jesus was also God. He was both. Jesus lived His life on this earth as a man.
Did He become sin? Jesus did not become sin in the sense that He became a sinner and needed to be born again. Jesus was the perfect Lamb of God who experienced the penalty of death for your sins and my sins. He was the perfect and sinless sacrifice for our sins. He knew no sin.

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. (NASB) 2 Cor. 5:21

The passage clearly states that Jesus who “knew no sin” became “sin.” It did not say that He became a sinner. The Greek does not say this. Isaiah tells us that when Jesus died on the cross, God the Father placed the sins of the world on Him.

All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him. (NASB) Isaiah 53:6

God did not see sin on anyone else. It was all on Jesus. Jesus was sin! But to say that Jesus was a sinner ignores other significant passages in the New Testament.

The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! (NASB) John 1:29

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust . . . (NASB) 1 Peter 3:18

And you know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. (NASB) 1 John 3:5

The last passage is significant . . . “in Him there is no sin.” He did not become a sinner, and He did not need to be born again.

Conclusion: Jesus was a sinless man. As a result, He was able to take the sin of the world onto Himself just before He died. As a result, a sinless man died. A man who did not deserve to die because God the Father placed the sins of the world on Him. He did not deserve to die, but He did. When He died, He experienced the pain and death that every man and woman had deserved. But He did not deserve it. In this way God has shown His love to us. Jesus willingly died in our place because He loved us. What a horrible experience that must have been for a holy being to experience!

So appreciate the fact that He came at all!

 

[Liraco]

Seriously, are my posts invisible or is that just me?

Well put, Nancy.

All I add to Matt. 27:46 is that when Jesus says those words you should read the whole Psalm 22 that he was reciting about himself. Context is often missed when you choose to only read one little part of scripture.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

…What you are saying here wether intentional or not is that Jesus’ death was not God’s punishment, but He atoned for our sins (and by extension for the punishment) by that sacrifice. If Jesus sacrifice was not a substitutional sacrifice, how could it atone for a non existant punishment. Your reasoning just is not making sense.

The punishment due to us existed (and exists) without the application of Christ’s atonement. And I AM saying the sacrifice substituted for punishment. I am disagreeing with you to the extent that YOU are saying the sacrifice involved Jesus literally suffering the wrath of God that was otherwise due to us. I’m not denying the fact that the sacrifice substituted for our punishment. I’m disputing the nature of that sacrifice.
RK:

…Your fine/jail analogy falls short as I have stated it is a perfect model for penal substitution.

Not in the way that you apparently believe it. Under your theory the ONLY way Christ would have been able to make His sacrifice is by “doing the time” (literal substitution). He did not do this, however, because He did not suffer eternal removal from God’s presence. Instead, He gave his life as a sacrificial substitute. The distinction I’ve been trying to make, over and over, is that there is a difference between a sacrifice substituting for punishment and a literal penal substitution in our place.

In my analogy, one pays a fine and no one goes to jail. Under your theory, one can only go to jail for someone else. Jesus did not go to jail. He sacrificed Himself as a ransom (fine) so that NO ONE needed to go to jail (Hell).
RK:

Christ had two natures. He is 100% God and He is 100% man. The humanity of Jesus paid the price for our sins by literally dieing our eternal death. He did this by being seperated from His Father… And again on the cross…

No, that is not correct. Jesus is one Person who experienced death because of His human nature, and conquered it because of His divine nature. What you are suggesting here is that Jesus was really two distinct persons (one human and one divine) and that the human person experienced separation from the divine Person. That’s not tenable because Christ was only one Person which by nature cannot be separated.
RK:

He did pay the fine. The biblical defination for hell is the gave. So Jesus did go to hell for us.

Gehenna is what Jesus referred to when speaking of the Hell of the damned. Hades, or sometimes Paradise (the “Hell” referred to in the Apostles Creed) is the abode of the dead, where the righteous awaited the coming of the Savior (also sometimes referred to as the bosom of Abraham). Christ went to the latter place to bring the righteous dead into Heaven. He was never separated from God because He is God, and He was never damned to Gehenna. Rather, it is clear that Christ was an atoning sacrifice that paid the debt due for our sins, but He was not abandoned by the Father, nor was His human nature somehow separated from His Divine personhood to experience eternal damnation (even for a second).
RK:

Again you fail to distiguish how Jesus perfect SACRIFICE was not literally undergoing the punishment due us.

I think I have made the distinction several ways, and by analogy.
RK:

Rom15:21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead…

… He paid the price. (substituted His death for ours)His death was the sacrifice that substituted for our eternal damnation and eternal separation from God. But His death on the Cross was NOT Jesus literally suffering the damnation that was due to us. Yes, his death substituted for our punishment, but as a sacrifice intended to take the place of humanity’s eternal damnation and separation from God, and not as a literal substitution for punishment.
RK:

Please enlighten me as to what that “more” is. Jn 3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. This is enough for me.

That the sacrifice is an eternal sacrifice by the High Priest who is also the Victim, from whom an ocean of grace continuously pours forth.
RK:

Since the manifestation of God’s wrath is our death (Rom6:23) above, what I hear you saying here is that Jesus paid the price for our sins with His life, but He didn’t die. Doesn’t make sense to me.

Where did I say He didn’t experience death? What I’m saying is that Christ’s death was not a literal substitution for the eternal punishment that was due to us. It was a sacrifice offered to take its place, but not an identical punishment.
RK:

How is “paying the fine” not a substitute for “doing the time”

I feel like Charlie Brown taking another crack at the football! Please re-read all of the above.

If the sacrifice of Christ was a *literal **substitution *for punishment, then why is Christ not still in Hell (Gehenna) and eternally separated from the Father? Obviously, that CANNOT happen because wherever Christ is, there you will find the Father also. Your theory is internally inconsistent and untenable. I don’t think there’s much left to say about this topic. We apparently will continue to disagree, but I have enjoyed the discussion Richard.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Just a comment in passing for my friend brkn1; Jesus Christ the second Adam in his perfect humanity is without sin, and knew no sin; Because of this, his perfect sacrifice at Calvary paid the price for our fallen humanity. To fulfill the Covenant of God, requires a death either by man or the testator God “himself will provide the sacrifice”, baptism (death) fulfills our entry into the New and everlasting covenant. Here are some scriptures for reflection;

Hebrews 10:4 for it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats take away sins.
5 For this reason, when he came into the world, he said: 3 “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me;
6 holocausts and sin offerings you took no delight in.
7 Then I said, ‘As is written of me in the scroll,** Behold, I come to do your will, O God.’” **

Romans 5:11
Not only that, but we also boast of God **through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. **12
4 Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned 5 –
13
for up to the time of the law, sin was in the world, though sin is not accounted when there is no law.
14
But death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin after the pattern of the trespass of Adam, who is the type of the one who was to come.

1Corithians 15:21
9 For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead came also through a human being.
22
For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life,

1Corinthians 15:45
So, too, it is written, “The first man, Adam, 21 became a living being,” the last Adam a life-giving spirit.
46
But the spiritual was not first; rather the natural and then the spiritual.
47
The first man was from the earth, earthly; the second man, from heaven.
48
As was the earthly one, so also are the earthly, and as is the heavenly one, so also are the heavenly.
49
Just as we have borne the image of the earthly one, we shall also bear the image 22 of the heavenly one.

 

[brkn1]

Bible Question: Did Jesus separate Himself from the Father when He died? The reason I am asking this question is because I was told that He was without sin and He died for us. But I was also told that He took all the sin of the world onto Himself, which means that He became sin so that He was the appropriate ‘propitiation’ for our sin debt.

Bible Answer: You have asked two key questions. Here they are: 1) Did Jesus separate Himself from the Father when He died? and 2) Did He become sin?
Did Jesus separate Himself from the Father when He died? Before the physical body of our Lord died on the cross, Jesus cried out,

. . . “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (NASB) Matt. 27:46

Many are confused by this statement. But it is important to understand that Jesus felt distant from God the Father because He took my sin, your sin, and the sin of every man and woman onto Himself when He died on the cross. He paid the penalty for the sins of the world. Jesus did not separate Himself from God the Father when He died. Many people are confused over this event because they fail to remember that Jesus was both God and man. God cannot separate Himself from Himself. But Jesus, the man, can feel separated from God the Father. Since Jesus was a man, He ate food, slept, grew tired, and died. Jesus was also God. He was both. Jesus lived His life on this earth as a man.
Did He become sin? Jesus did not become sin in the sense that He became a sinner and needed to be born again. Jesus was the perfect Lamb of God who experienced the penalty of death for your sins and my sins. He was the perfect and sinless sacrifice for our sins. He knew no sin.

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. (NASB) 2 Cor. 5:21

The passage clearly states that Jesus who “knew no sin” became “sin.” It did not say that He became a sinner. The Greek does not say this. Isaiah tells us that when Jesus died on the cross, God the Father placed the sins of the world on Him.

All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him. (NASB) Isaiah 53:6

God did not see sin on anyone else. It was all on Jesus. Jesus was sin! But to say that Jesus was a sinner ignores other significant passages in the New Testament.

The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! (NASB) John 1:29

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust . . . (NASB) 1 Peter 3:18

And you know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. (NASB) 1 John 3:5

The last passage is significant . . . “in Him there is no sin.” He did not become a sinner, and He did not need to be born again.

Conclusion: Jesus was a sinless man. As a result, He was able to take the sin of the world onto Himself just before He died. As a result, a sinless man died. A man who did not deserve to die because God the Father placed the sins of the world on Him. He did not deserve to die, but He did. When He died, He experienced the pain and death that every man and woman had deserved. But He did not deserve it. In this way God has shown His love to us. Jesus willingly died in our place because He loved us. What a horrible experience that must have been for a holy being to experience!

So appreciate the fact that He came at all!

Does your Catholic Catechism support this conclusion?
Your conclusion seems to admit that Jesus actually was a Sin-Bearer on the Cross. You state that “God the Father placed the sins of the world on Him.”.
I understand and agree with the part about Jesus not being a sinner Himself. The necessary qualifications of a Sin-Bearer must be that He is a sinless Perfect Man and He must also be God.

The problem with your explanation is that, once those sins of the world were placed on Jesus, God the Father had to pour out “the cup of trembling, even the dregs of the cup of my fury” upon Jesus for those sins of ours placed upon Jesus. If the Bearer of those sins was not punished by the Father, then those sins are not attoned for. To say that Jesus’ physical death and suffering at man’s hand was sufficient to pay for our sins, ignores the fact that the unpaid required penalty for sin is the wrath of God, Himself, against the sinner or the One taking the place of those sinners.
We deserve eternal damnation for the least of our sins against an Infinitely Holy God.
Since Jesus was also Infinitely Divine, His suffering of our deserved eternal wrath at His Father’s hand did not require more than those hours on the Cross to be more than comparable to all of our deserved eternal damnations.
The horribleness of both the physical and spiritual suffering of Jesus for our sins shows just how awful sin is to a Holy God. What Jesus had to really suffer for us, at the hands of His Father, during that time of darkness, will never be fully fathomed by us for its infinite suffering. Such is God’s infinite love for us. The answer to Jesus’ question about why His Father had to temporarily forsake Him, during that cup of the Father’s wrath, was: “But Thou art Holy.”

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Does your Catholic Catechism support this conclusion?
Your conclusion seems to admit that Jesus actually was a Sin-Bearer on the Cross. You state that “God the Father placed the sins of the world on Him.”.
I understand and agree with the part about Jesus not being a sinner Himself. The necessary qualifications of a Sin-Bearer must be that He is a sinless Perfect Man and He must also be God.

The problem with your explanation is that, once those sins of the world were placed on Jesus, God the Father had to pour out “the cup of trembling, even the dregs of the cup of my fury” upon Jesus for those sins of ours placed upon Jesus. If the Bearer of those sins was not punished by the Father, then those sins are not attoned for. To say that Jesus’ physical death and suffering at man’s hand was sufficient to pay for our sins, ignores the fact that the unpaid required penalty for sin is the wrath of God, Himself, against the sinner or the One taking the place of those sinners.
We deserve eternal damnation for the least of our sins against an Infinitely Holy God.
Since Jesus was also Infinitely Divine, His suffering of our deserved eternal wrath at His Father’s hand did not require more than those hours on the Cross to be more than comparable to all of our deserved eternal damnations.
The horribleness of both the physical and spiritual suffering of Jesus for our sins shows just how awful sin is to a Holy God. What Jesus had to really suffer for us, at the hands of His Father, during that time of darkness, will never be fully fathomed by us for its infinite suffering. Such is God’s infinite love for us. The answer to Jesus’ question about why His Father had to temporarily forsake Him, during that cup of the Father’s wrath, was: “But Thou art Holy.”

AMEN BRKN1 I wish I could express myself as beautifully and articulately as you do. God Bless

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

The Last Words of Christ

“The Last Words of Christ” weren’t all spoken at one time. They were spoken between 9 am (the 3rd hour of the day, 6 am being the “first hour”) and 3 pm (the “ninth hour”).

But the “last words” you listed aren’t His last. Look carefully. I have the four Gospels here. It is the moments before the Lord Jesus “gave up the ghost” that He died:

Matthew:
27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

Mark:
15:37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.

Luke:
23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

John:
19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

If there is any real issue, it’s not in the words spoken over six hours; it’s over the words spoken in the last moments of His earthly life. If you notice, Matthew, Mark and Luke all three say that Jesus “cried with a loud voice”

Luke and John both have words Jesus said before he “gave up the ghost.” Two sets of them:

“It is finished” and “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit”

Logically, I can figure which came after which.

First the Lord Jesus said, “It is finished.” I have no problem believing that is what He “cried with a loud voice.” Can you hear it?

“IT IS FINISHED!!!”

Then “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” He said this to indicate He was GIVING UP His life. Then the Scripture is understood when it says in all four gospels, “he gave up the ghost” (Greek, ekpneo, to breath out one’s last breath, breathe out one’s life).

So there is no conflict; the four gospels are complementary. Each complements the others to give a full picture.

“Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?”

This is a statement that has precedent. It is a quote of Psalm 22:1, which begins:

Psalms 22:1 “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?”

The psalm goes on to describe a lot of things that were fulfilled that day on the cross:

Psalms 22:14 “I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.” This describes what happens during crucifixion.

Psalms 22:16 “For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.” Again, this is what happened to the Lord Jesus Christ that day (Luke 24:40; John 20:20, 25).

Psalms 22:18 “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.” This again was fulfilled that day, by the soldiers near the cross (witnessed in all four gospels: Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:24).

And a wonderful point, that God actually had not rejected His Son is revealed in this psalm:

Psalms 22:23-24 “Ye that fear the LORD, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel. For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.”

“El” was not the name used, in the sense of a pagan deity. “El” was used instead as the name of God. It is found 235 times in the Hebrew Old Testament. Out of those 235 times, 212 times “El” clearly means the one G

 

[Philthy]

:tiphat:
Hi brkn1
Hi Richard

I’ve enjoyed the discussion on this topic and have dutifully read through the entire thread before asking once again a relatively simple question. Before I ask it I want to summarize what I think the fundamental disagreement is.

• The two of you understand Christs sacrifice on the Cross as being a literal, one-for-one transferal of the punishment (sins, per se, are not transferred) due humanity for its sins past, present and future. There are certainly some Scriptural verses which allow for this interpretation. It is termed a vicarious substitute sin bearing - a term which does not actually appear in Scripture, but is meant to explain what Scripture is understood to say.
• The **Catholic’s understand **Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross slightly differently. We agree that Christ paid “the price” for our sins, but that it is not a literal **transfer of the punishment due humanity for its sins, but an *atonement ***for those sins that serves as the punishment. The most glaring reason for this distinction (in my mind) is the fact that the actual punishment for our sins is eternal separation from God - aka, Hell - and Christ is not eternally separated from God; therefore how could it be a literal transfer of the punishment? This distinction does not in any way imply that Christ’s sacrificial atonement was somehow less than what we deserve - in fact it has been suggested that it was a greater price. Anyhow…

The question I have is:

What difference does it make from your perspective which of these models you understand Scripture to be portraying?

Why does is “really matter” as bkn1 said? I am not trying to be sarcastic or rude - I simply want to know why it is such a crucial distinction for each of you. I asked this question a while back and was hoping to get a simple explanation.

We have heard from the Catholics on why this distinction is important, but I specifically wanted to understand why the distinction was important to the OP and any who embraced the same theology.

Thanks and God bless you!

 

[SyCarl]

:tiphat:
Hi brkn1
Hi Richard

I’ve enjoyed the discussion on this topic and have dutifully read through the entire thread before asking once again a relatively simple question. Before I ask it I want to summarize what I think the fundamental disagreement is.

• The two of you understand Christs sacrifice on the Cross as being a literal, one-for-one transferal of the punishment (sins, per se, are not transferred) due humanity for its sins past, present and future. There are certainly some Scriptural verses which allow for this interpretation. It is termed a vicarious substitute sin bearing - a term which does not actually appear in Scripture, but is meant to explain what Scripture is understood to say.
• The **Catholic’s understand **Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross slightly differently. We agree that Christ paid “the price” for our sins, but that it is not a literal **transfer of the punishment due humanity for its sins, but an *atonement ***for those sins that serves as the punishment. The most glaring reason for this distinction (in my mind) is the fact that the actual punishment for our sins is eternal separation from God - aka, Hell - and Christ is not eternally separated from God; therefore how could it be a literal transfer of the punishment? This distinction does not in any way imply that Christ’s sacrificial atonement was somehow less than what we deserve - in fact it has been suggested that it was a greater price. Anyhow…

The question I have is:

What difference does it make from your perspective which of these models you understand Scripture to be portraying?

Why does is “really matter” as bkn1 said? I am not trying to be sarcastic or rude - I simply want to know why it is such a crucial distinction for each of you. I asked this question a while back and was hoping to get a simple explanation.

We have heard from the Catholics on why this distinction is important, but I specifically wanted to understand why the distinction was important to the OP and any who embraced the same theology.

Thanks and God bless you!

While not addressed to me, I would like to address your question.

First I don’t think that it is an either or proposition. Christ’s atonement can have more than one aspect. There is an element of punishment in it and I have previously cited church fathers who refer to this. It also has an aspect of satisfaction in the sense that Anselm saw it. The atonement also involves providing the total obedience that the law requires. Other aspects could include providing a perfect model, depriving the devil of any claim to us by his trying to claim Jesus to whom he had no right. All these perspectives have some support in church history.

However, I do not think that it is necessary to understand exactly how the atonement was made except that it was made by Christ’s death on the cross. After all God’s actions and ways are beyond our finite ability to understand completely.

 

[guanophore]

(2 Corinthians 5:21) is a verse that clearly points out the idea of substitution that some claim does not exist as a biblical idea.

On the contrary, we can see that all kinds of strange ideas can be supported by scripture. Almost anything can “exist as a biblical idea”. Mormons support as a “biblical idea” that Jesus is not God.

For centuries, those involved in the benefits of slavery used “biblical ideas” to support their beliefs.

Eph 6:5
5 Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart,

For more centuries “biblical ideas” were used to support the role of women as barefoot and pregnant:

1 Tim 2:15
15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

There is simply no honest way to get around " For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin;…".

It is right there, plain and simple; just as the true Gospel is.

No need to “get around it”.

The fact that the Father has made Jesus to “be sin” does not translate to a “vicarious substitutionary penalty”.

In some mysterious manner that is incomprehensible to us, Jesus “became sin” so as to pay the penalty of sin. A foreshadowing of this is seen in the scapegoat of Israel, which was loaded up with all the sins of Israel every year, then sent with the sins into the desert. The goat could not “become sin”, yet bore the sins of the nation away.

 

[guanophore]

Do you (and the RCC) really believe that Jesus Christ died on the Cross as our Sin-Bearer?

Without question.

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.

No, brkn1, there is a subtle difference here. The 'Gospel states that Jesus paid the penalty of our sins, not that He recieved the penalty. This is the difference between the sacrifice, and the vicarious substitutionary penalty. Jesus, by virtue of his nature and sacrificial act, paid our penalty. He did NOT do this by receiving the penalty for our sins (eternal death)

Christ took a believing sinner’s deserved place on the Cross, as our Substitute Redeemer (penalty-Payer).

Yes, he took our place on the cross, but not as a substitute. He took our place as a sacrifice. He did not bear our deserved penalty (eternal death) in our place.

Do you believe the above statements I just made?

No.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Does your Catholic Catechism support this conclusion?
Your conclusion seems to admit that Jesus actually was a Sin-Bearer on the Cross. You state that “God the Father placed the sins of the world on Him.”.
I understand and agree with the part about Jesus not being a sinner Himself. The necessary qualifications of a Sin-Bearer must be that He is a sinless Perfect Man and He must also be God.

The problem with your explanation is that, once those sins of the world were placed on Jesus, God the Father had to pour out “the cup of trembling, even the dregs of the cup of my fury” upon Jesus for those sins of ours placed upon Jesus. If the Bearer of those sins was not punished by the Father, then those sins are not attoned for. To say that Jesus’ physical death and suffering at man’s hand was sufficient to pay for our sins, ignores the fact that the unpaid required penalty for sin is the wrath of God, Himself, against the sinner or the One taking the place of those sinners.

Gabriel of 12;
brkn 1, here are a few scriptures to understand what the Catechism of the Catholic Church is explaining about this mystery of Jesus death. Regarding the wrath of God for our sins and the price paid for our sins. Maybe the following will explain the difference between the law of which your addressing and the Spirit of which the Catechism is teaching.

Galatians 3:1
1 2 O stupid Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?
2
I want to learn only this from you: did you receive the Spirit from works of the law, or from faith in what you heard? 3
3
Are you so stupid? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? 4

Galatians 5:18
But if you are guided by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

Romans 4:14
For if those who adhere to the law are the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.
15
For the law produces wrath; but where there is no law, neither is there violation. 5

Romans 7:6
But now we are released from the law, dead to what held us captive, so that we may serve in the newness of the spirit and not under the obsolete letter.

Romans 8;1
1 Hence, now there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
2
For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed you from the law of sin and death.
4
so that the righteous decree of the law might be fulfilled in us, who live not according to the flesh but according to the spirit.
5
For those who live according to the flesh are concerned with the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the spirit with the things of the spirit.
7
For the concern of the flesh is hostility toward God; it does not submit to the law of God, nor can it;
8
and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9
But you are not in the flesh; on the contrary, you are in the spirit, if only the Spirit of God dwells in you. Whoever does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
10
But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the spirit is alive because of righteousness.
11
If the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, the one who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also, through his Spirit that dwells in you.
12
Consequently, brothers, we are not debtors to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.
13
For if you live according to the flesh, you will die, but if by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
14
2 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God.

1Corinthians 2:10
this God has revealed to us through the Spirit.For the Spirit scrutinizes everything, even the depths of God.
11
Among human beings, who knows what pertains to a person except the spirit of the person that is within? Similarly, no one knows what pertains to God except the Spirit of God.
12
We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the things freely given us by God.
13
And we speak about them not with words taught by human wisdom, but with words taught by the Spirit, describing spiritual realities in spiritual terms. 7
14
Now the natural person 8 does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he cannot understand it, because it is judged spiritually.
15
The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment 9 by anyone.
16
For “who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to counsel him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

 

[benedictus2]

I disagree with you on this point.
The Triune God was willing to go to the extreme of the Father punishing His own Son,

Picture this: you have ten children. One is very obedient and the apple of your eyes. The nine are just rotten through and through. Af the nine have been disobedient and sinful, you take out the stick and whack your good son to death to punish him for the evil that the other 9 have done.

Does that make you a just and good father? If not, then how can you accuse God of the same thing?

in our place, to save fallen man.

brkn1 I would really like you to answer this: How does punishing his Only son save us from death and sin?

Our having been God-rejecting sinners, even before this great Sacrifice, is what makes God’s great love even more amazing than we can understand with our finite minds. The infinite glory demonstrated by such infinite love given to such unworthy recipients goes beyond human logic and emotions.

No quarrel with that. But did God PUNISH His Son to effect that salvation? What we have an issue with is your idea of how salvation is effected by Christ’s sacrifice.

Your argument also falls apart somewhat, when you consider that Abraham was willing to “slay his son”, whom he surely loved more than himself. Abraham was willing to do this because he both feared and loved God. The claim that God the Father would be unwilling to do what Abraham was willing to do, seems to place Abraham on a “one-up” position in the friendship department.

Abraham was sacrificing His son. But was Abraham PUNISHING his son to save other evil children. Was Abraham PUNISHING the good son in place of the bad?

 

[guanophore]

Rom 6:23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
The bible says that the wages or in other words what is due us (because we earned it) is death. This is the only punishment due us. I mean really what else could there be.

The evil consequences of sin are too numerous to count. Eternal separation from God may be the most severe, but it is certainly not the “only”.

What you are saying here wether intentional or not is that Jesus' death was not God's punishment, but He atoned for our sins (and by extension for the punishment) by that sacrifice. If Jesus sacrifice was not a substitutional sacrifice, how could it atone for a non existant punishment. Your reasoning just is not making sense.

T’his his why the Church calls it a mystery. In some matter that we do not rationally understand, Jesus was made to be sin, and by His death on the cross, bore our sins in His body on the cross, making atonement for us. Sacrifice and atonement does not necessarily mean vicarious penal substitution. Jesus did not experience eternal separation from God, which is the consequence for our sins.

Here we go again, you say there is a distinction, but you fail to state what that distinction is.

We can only state that the innovative langage used by the Reformers is erroneous, because it contradicts what God has revealed to the Church.

Christ had two natures. He is 100% God and He is 100% man. The humanity of Jesus paid the price for our sins by literally dieing our eternal death. He did this by being seperated from His Father.

This represents the heresy inherint in this view. Jesus’ two natures were contained in One Person. He could not be “separated from HIs Father”. This is a violation of the doctrine of the trinity.

This is what He is talking about in the garden when He said in Matt26:39And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

No.

And again on the cross when He felt the full impact of the seperation from His beloved Father. When He said 46And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

No.

As you have said the sacrifice of Christ was so much more that the punishment due us and perhaps that is why His temporary seperation from the Father was enough to pay the price for our eternal death. I don’t know,

No. You are mistaken. You have been wrongly taught, and have inadvertantly ae bsorbed a heresy that was defeated by the Church in the third century.

but I do know that it was and is sufficient. It payed the whole price. The only thing left for me to do is accept the gift in faith.

Now THIS is Aposotlic Teaching!

If taking on a human nature paid the ransom. Why did He have to die?

The incarnation was the means to the end. he took upon Himself our sins,but He did not do this only in His human nature, but in His Person, which is both human, and divine.

He did pay the fine. The biblical defination for hell is the gave. So Jesus did go to hell for us.

No, this is also false. Jesus went to the imprisoned souls to free them. He did not, and could not, suffer separation from the Father in hell.

Again, Jesus paid the price for us literally and substitutionally. He is the atoneing sacrifice for our sins and any other way you can think of. He paid it all.

We are in agreement that he did atone by His sacrifice for our sins, and paid it all. He did not do this by subtitution, though.

Since the manifestation of God’s wrath is our death (Rom6:23) above, what I hear you saying here is that Jesus paid the price for our sins with His life, but He didn’t die. Doesn’t make sense to me.

He did not experience eternal death, or separation from the Father.

How is “paying the fine” not a substitute for “doing the time”

It is, in my opinion. However, it is not 'substitionary" in that one person “did the time” for another.

 

[guanophore]

You are correct about the term I used not being a clear one. They should used separately to avoid confusion.

My explanation is as follows.
Jesus was sent by the Father to redeem us from our sins. (Galatians 4:4-5)
During the time of the actual One Sacrifice for our sin, God the Father “made Him” (Jesus) “to be sin for us, Who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.” (Jesus). There is the clear substitution of Jesus in our deserved place as sinners, so that the Father could satisfy His Holy requirement that all sin be punished.

You are equating things that do not. his sacrifice for our sin, and His bearing our sins in His body on the Cross does not equate to “substitution”. the deserved place for sinners is eternal death/separation from God. Jesus did not experience this. He satisfied our debt by sacrifice and atonement, not “substition”.

“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by BECOMING A CURSE for us” (as our Substitute in order to redeem us) “for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.”” (Galations 3:13) Jesus became the cursed One in our place as cursed sinners to pay God’s required penalty for our sins.

You are inserting the concept of “substitute” into the text here, to make the text agree with the errant theology that you are imposing upon it. This is what you are always accusing Catholics of doing!

 

[guanophore]

Well, you can call a cat a dog all you want that does not make it a dog. The undeniable fact is that this verse says God made Jesus sin. You can say that it dosen’t say that , but that desn’t make it so.

It does say what it says. It does not mean what you claim it means.

However He did it. It was God that made Jesus to be sin for us.

Yes. This is why we call it a mystery. We are not sure how He did that, but we are sure that the modern innovation theology of “vicarious penal substitution” is not correct because it involves heresies.

How else would you read it if not literally. Please be specific, because I really don’t see any other way.

The fact that we do not know the specifics does not mean it isn;t literal.

There is nothing in any of these passages that says “vicarious penal substitution”. All these verses are written by Catholics, and represent Catholic Theology.

Christ paid the price for our sins by substituting himself for us. Scripture is clear.

You are inserting the word “substitute” into the text. Scripture is clear, but atonement does not necessarily mean substitution.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

AMEN BRKN1 I wish I could express myself as beautifully and articulately as you do. God Bless

Dear Richard, BRKN1, Does this help in lay, when a woman has a child she has that placed in her womb, Placed on her, but, she has a choice as to weather she will take care of that child or not and she could just walk away. When you have a responserbility placed on you, you also have a CHOICE, now do you understand? Jesus was not forced to do what he did, the sin’s of the people was placed on His shoulders because he chose to die for us, and that makes it so much nicer to me to know his decision was for my life to exisest beyond the grave.It is nice to know he wanted to do this instead of having or being forced to do it.You are Loved Nancy He was our Sacrifice for sin’s, the One and true God!