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

[guanophore]

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.

No, brkn, you have made a logic error again. The thief that was crucified next to Christ stated our place on the cross - “we are receiving the just penalty for our crimes”. However, though the thief was crucified for his crimes, his death on the cross could not expiate him for eternity. He was not able to atone for his own sins.

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

This is what you have been taught because of the erroneous theological underpinnings of the Reformers that have informed your faith tradition. However, this is not the case. God accepted Christ’s sacrifice of Himself on our behalf, without affording Him the punishment that was due to us. God can set aside the punishments for our sins. This is what grace and mercy are all about.

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.

This is a modern innovation that is not part of the Apostolic Teaching.

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;…” .

You have misunderstood, brkn. Yes, Jesus paid the price in full for our sins, but the deserved penalty is eternal death, which He did not experience. Instead, God accepted His sacrifice as an atonement for our sins. He was not our “substitute”. He did not experience eternity in hell in our place. The bearing of our sins on the cross never separated Him from the Father, as it does us.

 

[Daedelus76]

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

No way! Actually, I attend a church in the Anglican Province of America - it’s a larger Continuing group. No female ordained (only deaconesses, they are considered oblates), no practicing gays ordained. Anglicanism is re-organizing. The APA has ties with the AMiA (African bishops mission), the Reformed Episcopals, etc. it’s hoped eventually there will be an orthodox province in North America and the Episcopalians will be marginalized. The Continuing movement started in the 60’s with Bishop Pike, who was a heretic/apostate who got into the occult, yet he wasn’t disciplined. Some people saw the writing on the wall and decided to leave. Some other conservative/orthodox have stayed around, even though they are probably going to face some major problems in July when the assembley will probably vote to sanction blessings of gays/lesbian and change the liturgy to “gender neutral” nonsense.

Personally, I don’t have as much against female ordination… I just don’t think my opinion ultimately should matter in that issue all that much. Katherine Jefferts Schori is a real embarassment, though, for the Episcopalians. Of course, many Episcopalians are so much into the cultic kool-aid they don’t see this. I’d be more concerned about communing with Episcopalians, though, because Schori said the resurrection was a “metaphor for renewal” in one interview (not to mention Gene Robinson’s or John Spong’s antics). If she said it was “spiritual” or “mystical” maybe I could better stomach that, but in short, she doesn’t really believe Jesus was divine (except in a new age adoptionist/Ebionite sense) or rose from the dead.

I have actually gone to an Episcopalians church a few times. They aren’t all liberals, there are still a few conservative holdouts, some moderates. But… I’d have problems forking over money to the hierarchy that is rotten.

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 precision. I live in a real world. thank you for your contribution to the faith. Nancy

Oh, the Orthodox more or less believe the same things you do on the major points. Yes, it’s vague. They reject the “how many angels on a head of a pin” kind of stuff. Likewise, they’d reject the immaculate conception or transubstantiation for the same reasons, they’d see it as unnecessary and not agreed upon by an Ecumenical Council (the really important part, where their teachings come from). Energetic doesn’t mean “magical” though in the occult sense, definitely not, it means they don’t have a substantialist metaphysics like Roman Catholicism, and they think of things “changing” you more than things being justified in a legal sense.

 

[Philthy]

benedictus2:
Good. I can see you have a certain grasp of kairos.

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?

The implication from the “vicarious substitution” theology is that not only “can we…sin”, but we are powerless not to - if we werent going to actually commit those sins Christ (who’s knowledge is not limited by time) would not have atoned for them. In addition, struggling to avoid sin would simply be a pathetic lack of faith in what Christ accomplished by the Cross on our behalf. Why would we avoid the very sins that Christ atoned for? How ungrateful would that be? This theology seems to me to be right on line with those in the Roman church who were misguided into thinking that "we should sin so that grace may abound…“and not far removed from a more modern interpretation of the words “sin boldly”. I personally don’t agree with the theology intellectually or scripturally. Most importantly - for me, personally - I never, ever - not even once - have sensed the Spirit revealing to me that “its OK if you sin”. I hear “I love you” “I forgive you” “Follow me” " I am by your side”…etc etc, but never “Dont worry about sin, dont struggle against the flesh for I have atoned for it all”.

None of the above should be misconstrued to mean that I somehow judge those who disagree with me - I dont at all. I rejoice in God’s presence in all of our lives and hope that as we all grow towards Him in faith that we all grow toward one another in love.

 

[anthony022071]

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.

The question is in what sense did God make Jesus sin. If you want to take it literally,then your god is sin. If you take it to mean that God imputed or charged Jesus with sin,then God is a liar or he made Jesus impure and thus himself as well,since the Father and Son are one in being.

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

Paul is using figurative language,just as John the Baptist used figurative language when he said “Behold the lamb of God”. What Paul means is simply that God allowed for Jesus to be punished like a sinner.

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.

None of these verses support the idea that God imputed our sins to Jesus.

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

Yes,but that is not what we are arguing about.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

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.

Thank You Guanophore, That’s right it is!

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Thank You Guanophore, That’s right it is!

Websters Dictionary
Britannica Online EncyclopediaESL:Learner’s for Kids:Word CentralSpell It!Dictionary Thesaurus Spanish/English Medical
Search “precision” in:
Thesaurus
Spanish/English
Medical Dictionary
Open Dictionary
Browse words next to:
precision
Browse the Dictionary:
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ# Feed Your Head
Sign up for Word of the Day and receive nourishing words and tasty language facts delivered free directly to your e-mail.

Subscribe today
See the Difference
Explore your world in exciting new ways with Merriam-Webster’s Visual Dictionary Online.
Main Entry:1pre·ci·sion
Pronunciation:\pri-ˈsi-zhən\
Function:noun
Date:1740
1: the quality or state of being precise : exactness What is so out of the world in this?

 

[brkn1]

No, brkn, you have made a logic error again. The thief that was crucified next to Christ stated our place on the cross - “we are receiving the just penalty for our crimes”. However, though the thief was crucified for his crimes, his death on the cross could not expiate him for eternity. He was not able to atone for his own sins.

The “just penalty for our crimes” by the crucifixion of the thieves only satisfies the justice of the Roman government at that time. It could never satisfy God.

You missed the whole point that I originally tried to make, so I will leave it at that.

 

[guanophore]

The “just penalty for our crimes” by the crucifixion of the thieves only satisfies the justice of the Roman government at that time. It could never satisfy God.

You missed the whole point that I originally tried to make, so I will leave it at that.

You are asserting that Jesus paid our price on the cross as a substitute, but the Apostles taught that He paid the price as a sacrificial atonement. Here is what you said:

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.

To which I said no, the thief stated “our place” which is the penalty for our own sins. In his case, it was the death penalty from the Romans. This, he testified, was “just”. Our temporal payment for our sins may be just in the eyes of the temporal authorities, or even permitted by God for our sanctification, but we cannot expiate ourselves from our sins, whether on the cross, or off. Only the perfect sacrificial atonement can do that. However, though Christ bore our sins in His body on the cross, He was not taking our place as a subtitute. He was not separated from the Father because of sin, as we are, and He did not suffer eternal damnation, as our sins cause us to do.

 

[Daedelus76]

Keep in mind too, Jesus forgave sins and preached repentence before his crucifixion (and repentence is ultimately the real mechanism by which salvation works, at least to start out). Rather than get into a debate about predestination and metaphysics, the atonement idea doesn’t say Jesus “had to die” for sin, it is almost like he died because of sin (a ransom to sin) but in some mysterious way, his death helps us be reconciled with God. Am I way off here? This view of salvation doesn’t put aside “works” or more properly, “working out your faith” at all.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

: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!

Phil. Thanks for this post. I think you really put your finger on the crux of the issue (no pun intended). Nice post.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

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.

Thanks Sy. I agree with the second part of your post. I think you can believe there are aspects of Divine punishment in the crucifiction and not put your personal salvation in jeopardy, and I also think you can accept or reject the notion of Christ being separated from God and not place your salvation at jeopardy. What is important is the more general message about Christ paying the price for sins, whether or not you see that price as a one-for-one literal substitution of Christ for our punishment.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

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

You do a fine job Richard. Don’t be too hard on yourself.

Peace,
Robert

 

[brkn1]

benedictus2:
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?

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?

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.

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

So how do you understand Galatians 3:13?

(Galatians 3:13) “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree.”

To understand what is meant by the curse of being hanged, we need to go to (Deut. 21:22,23) “…; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God…”.

The word serpent in the bible is used to describe or symbolize Satan, sin, or cursed sinners. The beginning of this was when God declared a curse “above all cattle” etc. upon the serpent in (Gen. 3:14).
Jesus and John the Baptist both called the Pharisees “a generation of vipers” and “serpents”. (Matt. 3:7, 12:34, 23:33)

With the above understanding, we go to what Jesus described as to how He was going to redeem sinners by His Crucifixion:
(John 3:14-15) “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
That whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
Jesus here describes Himself as a cursed serpent (“accursed of God”, according to the Law) by His being lifted up and hung upon the Cross.
Jesus was “made a curse” for us, so that, even though Jesus never sinned Himself, He would be treated as a “cursed of God sinner” in our place.
“For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.”

(Galatians 3:13) = (John 3:14-15)

Maybe you could give me your explanation of the above two verses, according to the Catholic understanding. Thanks.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

(Galatians 3:13) “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree.”

To understand what is meant by the curse of being hanged, we need to go to (Deut. 21:22,23) “…; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God…”.

The word serpent in the bible is used to describe or symbolize Satan, sin, or cursed sinners. The beginning of this was when God declared a curse “above all cattle” etc. upon the serpent in (Gen. 3:14).
Jesus and John the Baptist both called the Pharisees “a generation of vipers” and “serpents”. (Matt. 3:7, 12:34, 23:33)

With the above understanding, we go to what Jesus described as to how He was going to redeem sinners by His Crucifixion:
(John 3:14-15) “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
That whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
Jesus here describes Himself as a cursed serpent (“accursed of God”, according to the Law) by His being lifted up and hung upon the Cross.
Jesus was “made a curse” for us, so that, even though Jesus never sinned Himself, He would be treated as a “cursed of God sinner” in our place.
“For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.”

(Galatians 3:13) = (John 3:14-15)

Maybe you could give me your explanation of the above two verses, according to the Catholic understanding. Thanks.

I’m not sure if there is just one single “Catholic explanation” for these verses. Rather, the Church understands the parts of scripture in context with the whole, and the whole of scripture in context with the entire desposit of faith. That being said, coming from a Catholic perspective, I understand these passages to reference the manner in which Christ suffered the punishment of someone who is cursed under the law, which he was because of His own willingness to take on our sins to atone for them by His sacrifice. But - again - this understanding does not compel a conclusion that Christ underwent a literal substitutionary punishment, or somehow experienced a literal “cursing” to eternal damnation by the Father.

See the discussion at Article 4, here. It is Thomas Aquinas’s answer to the question on why Christ suffered death by crucifixion rather than some other form.

I think that what must be understood when reading this passage is that Christ willingly accepted His condemnation to suffer an ignominious death under Roman and Mosaic law, in submission to the will of His Father. But this passage does not asser that Christ was “cursed by the Father” in the sense that He was damned to Hell by the Father, in our place. Rather, the scripture acknowledges the position of Christ with respect to his sacrificial atonement.

That’s my understanding of the passage in light of all that the Church has preserved (including the rest of Scripture).

Peace,
Robert

 

[onenow1]

Hi All, Just a thought. Over and over again Jesus speaks of doing the will of the Father. Seems to me since Jesus is indeed God Divine,in the flesh; can it be Jesus has demonstrated to us,in his flesh God’s justice will be accomplished by the son accepting his Father"s decree for the human race [in Genesis 3: from dust you came, to dust you shall return ]! The difference being the power Jesus holds in our resurrection to life if we obey all his commands.

Genesis 4: God tells Cain if you are doing right surely you ought to hold your head high.
Using Genesis 4 Isn’t God telling Abel [the human race], in the OT and revealing this truth in the NT, through Jesus our Lord and Savior, that obeying His command to love neighbor as self, really encompasses the 10 commandments entirely, { Obedience].

We will each of us be responsible for the justice that is laid before us on our ressurection. Heaven or Hell… So is it the will of the Father or our own will as Jesus demonstrated and actually told Cain.

Peace, onenow1: 2 cents worth.

 

[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!

Patiently waiting!

 

[anthony022071]

(Galatians 3:13) “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree.”

To understand what is meant by the curse of being hanged, we need to go to (Deut. 21:22,23) “…; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God…”.

There’s a difference between the curse of being hanged and Jesus being accursed of God.
Deuteronomy refers to sinners who are hanged,and Jesus was not a sinner and did not have any guilt on his conscience. Jesus cannot be both the Lamb of God,or God’s beloved Son,and also accursed of God. Jesus was accursed of men,not his Father. He only appeared to be accursed of God when he was hanged on the cross.

The word serpent in the bible is used to describe or symbolize Satan, sin, or cursed sinners. The beginning of this was when God declared a curse “above all cattle” etc. upon the serpent in (Gen. 3:14).
Jesus and John the Baptist both called the Pharisees “a generation of vipers” and “serpents”. (Matt. 3:7, 12:34, 23:33)

With the above understanding, we go to what Jesus described as to how He was going to redeem sinners by His Crucifixion:
(John 3:14-15) “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
That whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
Jesus here describes Himself as a cursed serpent (“accursed of God”, according to the Law) by His being lifted up and hung upon the Cross.

Jesus did not describe himself as accursed serpent,he was likening the saving power of his crucifixion for those who believe in him with the healing power of the image of the serpent to who those who looked upon it.

Jesus was “made a curse” for us, so that, even though Jesus never sinned Himself, He would be treated as a “cursed of God sinner” in our place.
“For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.”

The expression “made him to be sin” is not to be taken literally,or to mean that God imputed sin to Jesus. If you take it literally,then your god is sin. If you take it to mean that God imputed sin to Jesus,then God is a liar who attributed sin to one who had no guilt. And God would have imputed sin to himself as well,since Father and Son are one in being,sharing the same divine nature. The expression is a figure of speech,as when we say of someone “he was made a laughingstock”.

 

[guanophore]

(Galatians 3:13) “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree.”

To understand what is meant by the curse of being hanged, we need to go to (Deut. 21:22,23) “…; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God…”.

The word serpent in the bible is used to describe or symbolize Satan, sin, or cursed sinners. The beginning of this was when God declared a curse “above all cattle” etc. upon the serpent in (Gen. 3:14).
Jesus and John the Baptist both called the Pharisees “a generation of vipers” and “serpents”. (Matt. 3:7, 12:34, 23:33)

With the above understanding, we go to what Jesus described as to how He was going to redeem sinners by His Crucifixion:
(John 3:14-15) “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
That whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
Jesus here describes Himself as a cursed serpent (“accursed of God”, according to the Law) by His being lifted up and hung upon the Cross.
Jesus was “made a curse” for us, so that, even though Jesus never sinned Himself, He would be treated as a “cursed of God sinner” in our place.
“For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.”

(Galatians 3:13) = (John 3:14-15)

Maybe you could give me your explanation of the above two verses, according to the Catholic understanding. Thanks.

What is written there IS the Catholic understanding. All of the NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. It is the Catholic faith represented.

It is a mystery, now it is that He could bear our sins on the cross, become sin, and be cursed, without being a substitution, but there it is.

 

[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!

When you say “Catholics believe Christ paid “the price” for our sins”, are you saying that Christ paid our sin penalty “in full” as a Sin-Bearer would?
A Sin-Bearer pays the full price of the deserved penalty for our sin completely by Himself.
Both perspectives could not be considered comparable, if the payment for our sin was not completely finished during Christ’s suffering on the Cross.
This requirement needs to be established first, before we can assume the difference in perspective makes little difference.

 

[Philthy]

When you say “Catholics believe Christ paid “the price” for our sins”, are you saying that Christ paid our sin penalty “in full” as a Sin-Bearer would?
A Sin-Bearer pays the full price of the deserved penalty for our sin completely by Himself.
Both perspectives could not be considered comparable, if the payment for our sin was not completely finished during Christ’s suffering on the Cross.
This requirement needs to be established first, before we can assume the difference in perspective makes little difference.

Hi brkn1! Thanks for getting back to me.
Let me first say that I have not assumed the difference in perspective makes little difference. It clearly makes a very big difference from the Catholic perspective - several posters have articulated theological problems with the vicarious substitution model. What remains unclear is what difference it makes from your perspective. It remains unclear because no one has even remotely suggested why it is an important doctrine. I am not assuming it makes little difference from your perspective, I am simply asking you to articulate the importance of your perspective and the reason for starting the thread topic.
That much being said let me say that I dont understand the exact quantitative nature of the atonement in relation to the “payment” for our sin. Some have suggested his atonement exceeded what was due. **I’m comfortable assuming it was either equal to or greater than what was required - that is more consistent with an act of love. I do know that there is nothing I can do, of myself, apart from what Christ has done, to be forgiven. All of my forgiveness is rooted in the Cross of Christ. **
Why dont you simply articulate why your position is important and the reasons why the “sacrificial atonement” understanding is insufficient or dangerous or whatever. It shouldnt be a big deal - why do you think its so important a distinction?