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

[Philthy]

SyCarl;:

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

Hi SyCarl :yup:

NP offering your opinion - it’s appreciated!

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.

All good stuff - the nature of the sacrifice has multiple dimensions which are not limited to vicarious substitution.

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.

Agreed. I think that not only is it not “necessary to understand exactly how the atonement was made” but it is beyond our comprehension in many ways. I think this is what guanophore was saying when he repeatedly characterized certain aspects of it as “mysterious”. I don’t think there is anything wrong with someone thinking of it as “Christ paid the price for my sins” but when you try to get *too *specific in how exactly that price was meted out - beyond what has been revealed - one runs the risk of contradicting other major doctrine (as several C’s have pointed out). In addition to those already addressed, there is the contradiction of God “double dipping” by punishing those in Hell for sins that Christ already atoned for. This leads to the necessity of “limited atonement” which opens up the possibility that God creates souls to spend eternity in Hell. That doesn’t sound like the God who is Love. These contradictions help me to understand why Catholics energetically oppose the “vicarious substitution” theology, but I have yet to hear why the proponents of it are such staunch advocates. **
Is it necessary to understand the exact nature of the sacrifice, price, etc that Christ paid with his life, passion and death beyond “Christ paid the price for my sins”? If so, why?
To date none of the proponents has even attempted to address this very basic question, which is quite odd IMHO.

Again, thanks for offering your valuable insight.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

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!

HI I just read this over and I want to emphisize I was not speaking of abortion I ment a responsibility for being a mom, or leaving that child to fend for himself. There I feel better God Bless Nancy

 

[Daedelus76]

I like Christus Victor or Ransom… so that’s how I tend to view it. I also understand the Catholic concept of “victim” somewhat, it’s part of Anglican piety. Still, I like Christus Victor.

If I understand it correctly, in it’s modern intepretation, Jesus Christ assumed our humanity and submitted to the same rules we live by in this fallen world, including dying a cruel and unjust death, a consequence of evil and free will. Because God has shown solidarity with the human condition, there is now no barrier between humanity and divinity. The more we identify with Christ and partake of the Mysteries, the more we are transformed by his death and resurrection- sanctified/divinized.

“Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him” Romans 6:8

“Christ is risen and Death is abolished. Christ is risen and life is freed” - St. John Chrysostom

“God became man, so man might become gods” - St. Athanasius

 

[guanophore]

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

This is a Reformation rendering that did not come from the Apostolic Teaching. It was derived 1500 years after the fullness of the Truth was committed to the Church. Jesus is fully able to atone for the sins of man without taking upon Himself the penalty and punishment for our sins. He did not suffer eternal death, which is the just consequence for our sins. He did not suffer separation from the Father, which is what sin does to us.

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.

There are many other aspects of Jesus’ qualification to become the perfect sacrifce besides suffering the imputation of sin at the hands of men. However, what delivered us from our sins at the cross was love, not wrath. Jesus did not suffer the wrath of God poured out upon Himself. God accepted His willing sacrifice as the atonement for our sins. Jesus was not acting as a subtitute for us in the sense that He suffered separation from the Father or hell as just wrath.

We deserve eternal damnation for the least of our sins against an Infinitely Holy God.

Exactly! But Jesus did not suffer that as our vicarious penal substitute.

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 error here is that separation from the father is implied in the model. That it why it is a departure from the Apostolic Teaching. I suggest a reading of the early heresies and the definition of the Trinity.

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.”

The father could not forsake the son. This is a misunderstanding of the Trinity, the words of Jesus on the cross, and the nature of sacrificial atonement.

 

[guanophore]

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

He is defninitely doing a good job representing Calvanism and Reformed theology.

 

[marymol]

’ I am filling up in my body what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ on behalf of His Body which is The Church ’ - another verse that can help in the understanding of what our Lord has done.

Our Lord , totally trusting in The Father and His plan for Him ( while always remaining one with The Father , in The Spirit ) carried out all He was to , thus did away with the serpentine fear that lies coiled in many of us and keeps us from trusting in that Father’s love and plan for us ; this is our sin and this sin is what had to be undone (or punnished ) .

The Church in turn teaches and guides her children in how to show their own trust as well , for the peace , freedom and salvation of eternal life that it brings.

St.Paul, by working tirelessly to teach and follow those ways , also filled with that same trust in Him , in what He expected of him and living it out willingly , accepting whatever came and filled with the hope shown us in the Resurrection as well as trust in His mercy on behalf of all - that He alone has made the perfect act of love that He in turn trusts us also to offer up !

And that type of trust that undoes the serpentine coils of fear after it has been streched out on The Cross, with Him who inturn holds His children close enough when they let Him, and imparting to them that power of loving trust - that they too can fly with the freedom of children of God , filled with and on the wings of The Spirit of Love and all that in stands for !

A very Blessed Feast of Pentecost to all !

 

[Daedelus76]

He is defninitely doing a good job representing Calvanism and Reformed theology.

It’s a pitty most Americans are sold this stuff as the “gospel message”. I guess it’s easy and simple, but it also risks turning God into “Cosmic Child Abuser”. But then it was dreamed up by John Calvin, a guy that had no problems inflicting severe penances on his enemies in Geneva. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

It’s actually a wonder that Calvinism churns out decent people, I definitely wouldn’t say it’s “non-Christian”, but it’s a harsh, anti-mystical theology- no wonder Calvin and Knox loved spartan churchmanship- somber hymns and lots of moralistic sermons.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

I like Christus Victor or Ransom… so that’s how I tend to view it. I also understand the Catholic concept of “victim” somewhat, it’s part of Anglican piety. Still, I like Christus Victor.

If I understand it correctly, in it’s modern intepretation, Jesus Christ assumed our humanity and submitted to the same rules we live by in this fallen world, including dying a cruel and unjust death, a consequence of evil and free will. Because God has shown solidarity with the human condition, there is now no barrier between humanity and divinity. The more we identify with Christ and partake of the Mysteries, the more we are transformed by his death and resurrection- sanctified/divinized.

“Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him” Romans 6:8

“Christ is risen and Death is abolished. Christ is risen and life is freed” - St. John Chrysostom

“God became man, so man might become gods” - St. Athanasius

Would you mind elaborating on the line Please? Does that mean to become as gods or to become God’s? There are people I have met that do think they will be as god’s someday. Nancy

 

[Daedelus76]

Would you mind elaborating on the line Please? Does that mean to become as gods or to become God’s? There are people I have met that do think they will be as god’s someday. Nancy

I’m not intending the LDS belief but I’m referring to the Eastern expression of “theosis”. Just as God assumes humanity, humanity assumes divinity. It’s thoroughly orthodox (and of course, there’s a distinction between the “essence” of God- which is not obtainable as it is infinite and unknowable, and the energies of God, which a person can assume), though you won’t heart it in Roman Catholicism or Reformed theology as much. It did sort of re-appear in Anglicanism and Methodism under the emphasis on sanctification or “Christian Perfection” and a process or synergistic understanding of salvation, and influenced alot of Anglicans, like Wesley, C.S. Lewis (who read several of the Eastern fathers), etc. Orthodoxy itself doesn’t rigidly distinguish between jutsification, sanctification, and glorification.

Theer’s also a verse in 2nd Peter that talks about theosis, and of course St. John often writes about being “children/sons of God”, etc.

“… According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.” 2nd Peter 1:2-4

Here’s a link talking about the Orthodox concept of theosis:

antiochian.org/node/16916

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

I’m not intending the LDS belief but I’m referring to the Eastern expression of “theosis”. Just as God assumes humanity, humanity assumes divinity. It’s thoroughly orthodox (and of course, there’s a distinction between the “essence” of God- which is not obtainable as it is infinite and unknowable, and the energies of God, which a person can assume), though you won’t heart it in Roman Catholicism or Reformed theology as much. It did sort of re-appear in Anglicanism and Methodism under the emphasis on sanctification or “Christian Perfection” and a process or synergistic understanding of salvation, and influenced alot of Anglicans, like Wesley, C.S. Lewis (who read several of the Eastern fathers), etc. Orthodoxy itself doesn’t rigidly distinguish between jutsification, sanctification, and glorification.

Hello, You are saying that we will become like God but there is only one God?He states we will be like him perhaps in body?Or will we be gods over other places in the universe?You say your belief doesn’t rigidly distuinguish between justification, sanctification, and glorification? Could you please reiterate? Thank You Nancy

 

[Daedelus76]

Hello, You are saying that we will become like God but there is only one God?He states we will be like him perhaps in body?Or will we be gods over other places in the universe?You say your belief doesn’t rigidly distuinguish between justification, sanctification, and glorification? Could you please reiterate? Thank You Nancy

It’s not really entirely different than the Catholic or Protestant beliefs… the difference is how it is expressed and what is emphasized. The emphasis for them is on being holy more than “good” in a legal sense.

Orthodoxy emphasizes the holiness bit more, where they’d say that Roman Catholicism tends to emphasize justification (too much for their tastes, since they emphasize atonement ideas which aren’t really about human justice). They are more into asceticism and theological ambiguity/mystery, Roman Catholics are more into a forensic/legal understanding of morality, precision, exactness, etc. Whereas Roman Catholics and Protestants usually emphasize goodness and truth, Orthodox emphasize holiness and beauty. It’s a generalization but maybe that will help you understand the difference.

Whereas especially Protestants (and perhaps Catholics too) tend to break down justification, sanctification, and glorification into seperate, discrete things that happen at different times, Orthodox leave that intentionally vague. It happens as a process or energetic fashion (C.S. Lewis called religion the “good infection”, or his use of magic as a metaphor, those are examples of Eastern thinking. Or Jesus’ Parable of the Leaven, that is another example). Unlike Roman Catholicism, the Orthodox have a theology and philosophy that is more like an Asian religion, it is based on a non-metaphysical or energetic understanding of reality- more “vague”, whereas Scholasticism in RCC or many Protestant denominations like precision.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Hello Dedelus78,I have thought about what you said and I did fond an artical about the fact you allow Woman Bishop’s and Gay’s in your Church? I might be swayed to a woman, but to the other I am against. you have supped, with evil, and it should not be in the church, you drink of the Holy Chalice and put your lips on the same cup as they who put their lips in cow dung?Where is the Church not holding up human justice? because of what I said?Yes they are human and should have the right to go to their own church that I agree on.As far as the mystry would you be refering to the Eucharist? It is a mystry and it is for God’s children, and they keep the Commandments of the Father. There is no compromise in the word of God, I have been wrong on many occasions, and I know because it all points to the Laws of God, Jesus did not come to change the law, not one tittle.And you cannot get a rocket up without percision,and timeing. I worked in QA 5 years for a big wig company, so I know.I will take goodness and truth over hollyness and beauty, because if your good and tell the truth you become beautiful and holy. You can tell me all week that I am beautiful, but i’d rather hear the truth.There is nothing Vague about God he does not want any to be ignorant of anything concerning him.Magic and Metaphysical or energenic understanding of reality Vague? I’ll take percision. I live in a real world. thank you for your contribution to the faith. Nancy

 

[brkn1]

He did NOT do this by receiving the penalty for our sins (eternal death)

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.

No.

So then our place on the Cross would be equal to receiving our deserved eternal death, according to your explanation. I would definitely choose the worst sufferings by crucifixion against an eternal death and suffering in the Lake of Fire, where there is weeping an nashing of teeth forever.

Sin must be punished by God, or God’s Holy Wrath and Justice against sin would be made to no effect. Jesus took our place, as our Substitute, to satisfy a Holy God’s wrath against our sins. Jesus paid our deserved penalty in full on the Cross by His Sacrifice.
Jesus said, “It is finished!” before He died. Our sins laid upon Jesus were paid in full at the hand of His Father BEFORE He died. This answers the question of those who say that Jesus could be said to “still have sin upon Him” at His death. Jesus paid the required penalty completely before His death, and therefore He died without sin, although the Father had placed our sin upon Him, as (2 Corinthians 5:21) declares. “For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin;…” .

 

[brkn1]

: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!

I will try to answer this question eventually. I have been doing a lot of travel and work lately, so please be patient if it takes a while for me to get to your question. Thanks.

 

[benedictus2]

** 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)**

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.

Hi brkn1,

I have highlighted Guano’s response above because I think this is the clearest presentation on the question you have posed.

Do take time to ponder on this. Hope you get the subtleties.

 

[benedictus2]

All of eternity past, present, and future are as one page to God. It would be as if all things ever done or to be done are forever present before God, with nothing hidden.

Good. I can see you have a certain grasp of kairos.

All future sins must also be incuded as imputed upon Christ’s own body, during the One Sacrifice, or they could not be included as having been paid for.

If all future sins have been paid for by Christ, can we therefore commit all sorts of sin and still expect to go to heaven considering any evil we will do in the future has already been paid for?

 

[benedictus2]

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)

How does this redemption occur? What is the actual process?
If you say by dying on the cross. How does His dying on the cross redeem us from our sins?

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).

What does it mean for “Jesus to be SIN for us? You need a clear understanding of this before you can more on with your exegesis.

Merely quoting them is not doing an exegesis.

How does Jesus becoming Sin make us righteous?

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.

Actually not. There is no clear substitution.

Is it the Father’s requirement to punish sin? Isn’t that sin by it’s nature cannot be punished? Only persons (that is beings) can be punished.

To explain: You do not punish adultery. You punish those who commit adultery.

“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 have not explained how you understand these verses. You merely quoted them.

So how do you understand Galatians 3:13?

 

[benedictus2]

Sin must be punished by God, or God’s Holy Wrath and Justice against sin would be made to no effect.

God does not punish sin. Sin itself cannot be punished because it is not an entity. The commision of sin is punishable and the punishement is not meted out on sin but on the sinner.

Your use of lose terminologies make for wrong conclusions on your part.

Jesus took our place, as our Substitute, to satisfy a Holy God’s wrath against our sins. Jesus paid our deserved penalty in full on the Cross by His Sacrifice. [/qute]

Good. This is exactly wht Guano is trying to say.

Jesus said, “It is finished!” before He died. Our sins laid upon Jesus were paid in full at the hand of His Father BEFORE He died.

But “It is finished” does not necessarily mean that redemption is finished. Bear in mind that Jesus has not risen yet. That will not happen till Easter. So therefore Jesus could not have meant that the act of redemption is finished on the cross. Without the Resurrection, the death on the cross would have been all for nothing.

This answers the question of those who say that Jesus could be said to “still have sin upon Him” at His death. Jesus paid the required penalty completely before His death, and therefore He died without sin, although the Father had placed our sin upon Him, as (2 Corinthians 5:21) declares. “For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin;…” .

Making Jesus to be sin is not the same as putting our sins upon him.

To clarify: Let us us say that sin is a huge rock. Putting a huge rock on Jesus is not the same as making Jesus a huge rock. 2 Cor 5:21 clearly states that Jesus became a huge rock and not that a huge rock was placed on Jesus.

 

[guanophore]

It’s a pitty most Americans are sold this stuff as the “gospel message”. I guess it’s easy and simple, but it also risks turning God into “Cosmic Child Abuser”. But then it was dreamed up by John Calvin, a guy that had no problems inflicting severe penances on his enemies in Geneva. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

It’s actually a wonder that Calvinism churns out decent people, I definitely wouldn’t say it’s “non-Christian”, but it’s a harsh, anti-mystical theology- no wonder Calvin and Knox loved spartan churchmanship- somber hymns and lots of moralistic sermons.

It is a testimony to the power of the HS, and His willingness to use any speck of sincere desire to lead one to the Father. Most of those born into Calvanistic traditions are brought up never knowing the Apostolic faith. However, the bit of Sacred Tradition that has been preserved within these separated ecclesial communities is sufficient for God to work in the lives of those who embrace even grievous errors such as those presented in this thread.

 

[guanophore]

And you cannot get a rocket up without percision,and timeing. I worked in QA 5 years for a big wig company, so I know.

You can tell me all week that I am beautiful, but i’d rather hear the truth

I’ll take percision. I live in a real world. thank you for your contribution to the faith. Nancy

Nancy, I am not at all convinced that you live in the same world as the rest of us do. I can tell you a truth, though, your post is completely off topic in this thread.