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

[SteveGC]

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?

I second that appeal.

Please, it’s been 340 posts, and I am anxious to understand the underlying purpose of this thread. Is it an attempt to find some vague “loophole” in Catholicism, something that you can lean on to sway Catholics to your position such that they begin to question the Magisterium? In the absence of your clarification, this is the only thing I can come up with.

Thank you.

 

[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.

Hi, Again all here is an excerpt from Father William Most on redemption.Redemption Shows God’s Love for Man

Rom 5:8 said, “God proved His love.” Now, if someone desires the well-being of another, and starts out to procure it, but then runs into an obstacle, and if a small obstacle will stop him, the love is small If it takes a great obstacle, the love is great But if that love could overcome even the immense obstacle of the terrible death of Jesus, that love is immense, beyond measure.

It was not only the physical pain, but the rejection by those whom He loved that hurt Him The pain of rejection can be measured by two things: 1) how severe is the form of the rejection; 2) how great is the love for the one who is rejecting.

If someone jostles me in a crowd, that is a small thing But if he wants to kill me, that is far worse, and if he means to do it in the most hideous way possible–then the rejection is at the peak .And what is the love of Jesus? Inasmuch as He is a Divine Person, the love is infinite; inasmuch as we consider the love of His human will, able to overcome such a measureless obstacle, the love is beyond measure.

In the Garden of Gethsemani Jesus foresaw all sins of all times, and suffered from that vision Let us recall His foreknowledge and life-long anxiety, resulting from the vision His soul saw from the first instant of conception, and which He let us see briefly in Lk.12:50 and Jn 12:27 In line with this, Pius XI, wrote in his Encyclical Miserentissimus Redemptor (AAS 20.174): “Now if the soul of Christ [in Gethsemani] was made sorrowful even to death on account of our sins, which were yet to come, but which were foreseen, there is no doubt that He received some consolation from our reparation, likewise foreseen.”

So now we see why obedience called for something so tremendous Yes, even the least thing done by an Infinite Person could rebalance In fact, the Father could have accepted an incomplete rebalance, from any religious act He might order to be done by an ordinary human Or, He could have been content with the Incarnation in a palace since, again, any act of an Infinite Person is infinite in value But the Father wanted not only to be able to forgive, but to forgive lavishly (The priest in giving absolution, can wipe out even a lifetime of dreadful sins in a moment: “I absolve you.”) So He went beyond the incarnation in a palace, to the stable, beyond an Incarnation with only a prayer, to the horrible death of the cross The first thing Jesus had to say to His Apostles when He first came after His resurrection was, “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them.” He had just paid a terrible price for that forgiveness He could hardly wait, we might say, to make that concretely possible.

Peace, onenow1

PS. Hope this helps the discussion.

 

[anthony022071]

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.

The Bible doesn’t give a definition for the term “sin-bearer”. The term is not even used in the Bible. But obviously Jesus did sacrifice himself in atonement for all of our sins.
It wasn’t a matter of literally paying a price for our sins,as if God needed payment in order to save us. God required his Son to sacrifice himself in order so that men would learn the extent of God’s love for us.

See post 336.

 

[anthony022071]

Edit:

God required his Son to sacrifice himself in order so that men would know of God’s love for us and would believe in the Son because of his resurrection. Jesus’ sacrifice was teaching by demonstration.

See post 336.

 

[GraceDK]

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

The Scripture that I will use to define Jesus Christ as the Sin-Bearer can be found in (1 Peter 2:24-25):
“Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.”

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

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

I have good news for you brother and I hope you will accept this good news and go away in peace: The Catholic Church believes that Yeshua the Messiah carried all sins of mankind throughout all of history up on the Cross in order to take the punishment, wages of sin that is death, upon Himself so we can live as reconciled sons and daughters in personal relationship and peace with our loving heavenly Abba.

Okay… so, do not grieve for us. The Bible was written by the Catholic Church and what you are writing is self-evident apart from the part where you think Catholicism is in contradiction to the Bible…

Shalom and peace…

 

[marymol]

This thread being in the noncath. section could be of special interest to nonchristians as well and hence persevering to grasp the depth and meaning of our truth may be worthwhile.

One of the verses being discussed that seemed of special interest is ’ He who knew no sin became sin for us that in Him , we might become the righteousness of God ’ ; deep and mysterious verses indeed yet simple enough to give us enough to satisfy at a certain level too and to keep us pondering on furthur.

Again , trust as the key seems to make it easier to get at the message.

Our Lord never had any sin of not trusting in The Father’s love for Him and even that anguished cry from The Cross - ’ why have you forsaken Me’ is only an echo of that trust from his anguished human nature that took upon all pain and agony brought on by the human kind that would not have any trust in the love of The Father .

Thus our Lord is ’ made to be sin ’ by and because of the hatred and lack of any trust of those around Him as well as of those who ever lived and would live - of not trusting Love ; He who seemed as a mere human yet claiming to be Divine and from The Father, One with The Father !.

He , in turn accepting all that such hatred brought on , the sin of failed trust from each of us !

Having thus made the act of perfect trust in the face of such denial, He is the righeousness of God and those of us who atleast now can see and accept same and offer up to The Father such perfect sacrifice on our behalf , ‘in Him’ by staying in communion through the trusting act of accepting His Church and thus In Him offering up the infinite merits of the sacrifice of The God Man , on behalf of each of us , thus freeing us from the sin of the failed love and trust that often follow fallen nature … a prelude to the Eternal Banquet …!
All Praise and Honor to The Most Holy Trinity !

 

[guanophore]

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.

Yes, Jesus paid the full price for our sins. By His cross and resurrection, He has set us free. He has set us free from the bondage of sin and death, and made us to live as priests and kings to our God.

 

[Philthy]

Yes, Jesus paid the full price for our sins. By His cross and resurrection, He has set us free. He has set us free from the bondage of sin and death, and made us to live as priests and kings to our God.

Hi Guanophore (aka dung-lover?)

While I am patiently waiting to hear from brkn1 I thought I might divert the discussion just slightly. The theological problems generated by the “vicarious substitute sin bearer” model surprised and interested me. But I am not one to gloat on the shortcomings of others - it got me thinking more deeply about my own understanding. It has me convinced that my understanding of Hell - among other things! - is deficient. Here’s why: If Christ has “paid the full price for our sins” what is the purpose of Hell? I always thought of Hell as a form of punishment for sin, but to maintain that position while simultaneously believing that Christ “paid the full price” would mean that any retribution which occurs in Hell represents God punishing a sin which has been fully atoned for. Somehow that can’t be right, right? And its not a question of “vicarious substitute” vs “sacrificial atonement” for this issue, both result in God punishing sins which Christ has already atoned for. My first thought is that Hell must not be a “punishment” in the sense I think of it, but something else. Or perhaps what Christ accomplished is not best thought of as a “transaction” where sins penalty is offset by his sacrifice. There must be more to it. Anyhow, I am interested in hearing what you (or anyone else) has to say. Thank you for sharing your knowledge of our faith…

 

[SteveGC]

Hi Guanophore (aka dung-lover?)

While I am patiently waiting to hear from brkn1 I thought I might divert the discussion just slightly. The theological problems generated by the “vicarious substitute sin bearer” model surprised and interested me. But I am not one to gloat on the shortcomings of others - it got me thinking more deeply about my own understanding. It has me convinced that my understanding of Hell - among other things! - is deficient. Here’s why: If Christ has “paid the full price for our sins” what is the purpose of Hell? I always thought of Hell as a form of punishment for sin, but to maintain that position while simultaneously believing that Christ “paid the full price” would mean that any retribution which occurs in Hell represents God punishing a sin which has been fully atoned for. Somehow that can’t be right, right? And its not a question of “vicarious substitute” vs “sacrificial atonement” for this issue, both result in God punishing sins which Christ has already atoned for. My first thought is that Hell must not be a “punishment” in the sense I think of it, but something else. Or perhaps what Christ accomplished is not best thought of as a “transaction” where sins penalty is offset by his sacrifice. There must be more to it. Anyhow, I am interested in hearing what you (or anyone else) has to say. Thank you for sharing your knowledge of our faith…

Hi Phil,

I think it has something to do with the fact that Jesus’ atonement only paid the full price for those who accept Him, and remain in Him. The source and effect of our salvation are two different, yet unified, concepts. Jesus made it possible, Hell is for those who don’t want any part of it. Somehow, I know you know this, so I must be confused as to your question. God Bless, and keep up the great apologetics you offer on CAF.

 

[GraceDK]

Hi Phil,

I think it has something to do with the fact that Jesus’ atonement only paid the full price for those who accept Him, and remain in Him. The source and effect of our salvation are two different, yet unified, concepts. Jesus made it possible, Hell is for those who don’t want any part of it. Somehow, I know you know this, so I must be confused as to your question. God Bless, and keep up the great apologetics you offer on CAF.

Thats not how I understand the Gospels.

Jesus payed full price for everyone, without exception.
But not everyone willingly receives the gift of salvation that is brought about by Christ’s atonement sacrifice. If He only died for some, then God would have favourites and not everyone would have the chance to go to heaven. But God does not have favourites.

 

[Stouts989]

Thats not how I understand the Gospels.

Jesus payed full price for everyone, without exception.
But not everyone willingly receives the gift of salvation that is brought about by Christ’s atonement sacrifice. If He only died for some, then God would have favourites and not everyone would have the chance to go to heaven. But God does not have favourites.

Read through Romans 9…

 

[The_Question]

Yes, Jesus paid the full price for our sins. By His cross and resurrection, He has set us free. He has set us free from the bondage of sin and death, and made us to live as priests and kings to our God.

Very well put! That will be the song sung for all eternity by a choir no man can number!!

 

[SteveGC]

Thats not how I understand the Gospels.

Jesus payed full price for everyone, without exception.
But not everyone willingly receives the gift of salvation that is brought about by Christ’s atonement sacrifice. If He only died for some, then God would have favourites and not everyone would have the chance to go to heaven. But God does not have favourites.

My choice of wording probably threw you off, DK. Sorry about that.

Yes, Christ’s sacrifice was done for everyone…no one is excluded.

What I meant was that the* effect *of this offering (actual forgiveness and salvation) is only given to those who willingly accept and remain in Him.

I’ll be more careful with how my wording comes across. I can see how my first sentence suggested partiality (or favoritism), but if you look at the rest of it, I emphasize, as you do, that the source and effect of our salvation are two distinct concepts.

 

[brkn1]

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?

The title I gave this thread has been proven to be correct. Your church does not accept that Christ literally “His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree”. Your church must concentrate only on the sacrifice of Jesus Himself to pay for our sin.

Christ, as a literal Sin-Bearer Who suffered our deserved punishment for those sins as our Substitute, would make His one Sacrifice on the Cross a non-repeatable or non-continuing Sacrifice. It was “finished!”, as He declared before He died, and no further payment was necessary from then on. To later claim that His one Sacrifice continues or could be added to in any way, is to deny what Christ did “by Himself” and sealed with His Shed Blood to completely redeem those given to believe and accept Christ’s one Sacrifice. A faith in an unfinished or continuing sacrifice is not a saving faith.

 

[GraceDK]

My choice of wording probably threw you off, DK. Sorry about that.

Yes, Christ’s sacrifice was done for everyone…no one is excluded.

What I meant was that the* effect *of this offering (actual forgiveness and salvation) is only given to those who willingly accept and remain in Him.

I’ll be more careful with how my wording comes across. I can see how my first sentence suggested partiality (or favoritism), but if you look at the rest of it, I emphasize, as you do, that the source and effect of our salvation are two distinct concepts.

Good … I am only glad to see you agree… Because of course it is such.
Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross is for all mankind, at all times… each and every one. But we must accept His gift… Both John the Baptist and Jesus talked about repentance unto the forgiveness of sins… there can be no salvation if we dont realise we are sinners and ask His forgiveness and actually turn away from our sins through the power of His Spirit…
Only through the Blood are we justified and sanctified… there can be no reconciliation with God without Christ. He is the brigde and the Way.We can point at no person and say: “Jesus did not die for her/him”.

 

[SteveGC]

The title I gave this thread has been proven to be correct. Your church does not accept that Christ literally “His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree”. Your church must concentrate only on the sacrifice of Jesus Himself to pay for our sin.

Christ, as a literal Sin-Bearer Who suffered our deserved punishment for those sins as our Substitute, would make His one Sacrifice on the Cross a non-repeatable or non-continuing Sacrifice. It was “finished!”, as He declared before He died, and no further payment was necessary from then on. To later claim that His one Sacrifice continues or could be added to in any way, is to deny what Christ did “by Himself” and sealed with His Shed Blood to completely redeem those given to believe and accept Christ’s one Sacrifice. A faith in an unfinished or continuing sacrifice is not a saving faith.

Wow…

355 posts just to arrive at THAT conclusion??

You know, you could’ve just had 2 posts for this thread. The first one asking if Catholics believe Christ’s sacrifice was insufficient, and if we must sacrifice Him all over again during every Mass, and the second one being a reply: NO.

You went around the long way, and STILL came up with an erroneous conclusion. That was nifty.

 

[GraceDK]

The title I gave this thread has been proven to be correct.

…To later claim that His one Sacrifice continues or could be added to in any way, is to deny what Christ did “by Himself” …

brkn1.

In your heart you had already held trial and condemned us before you ever posted your thread. You don’t have any love for your brethren and refuse to understand because you want your illusions to be maintained… what does it give you? do you get satisfaction from this?

I, as a Catholic, claim that there is ONE SACRIFICE at ONE TIME in history by ONE PERSON: Jesus Christ.
He said “It is finished” … even in my Bible it says: “Its been brought to the full”. Humans cannot add to the Sacrifice of Christ because He alone is God and He alone is totally good…
What is it that you disagree on?
We say that His suffering has eternal value and effect, not that He suffers continuously on the cross or that we add to His Work.
All is Grace.

Understand this and leave us in peace. You are like the pharisee that tries so hard to find fault even where there is none!

 

[Philthy]

The title I gave this thread has been proven to be correct. Your church does not accept that Christ literally “His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree”. Your church must concentrate only on the sacrifice of Jesus Himself to pay for our 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!

The two models you describe do not differ “slightly” as you describe and they can not be compared as having the same result.
The one Sacrifice of Jesus, which includes Jesus suffering, as our Sin-Bearer, our deserved punishment for our sin at the hand of the Father is forever complete at the death of Jesus. The result of that Sacrifice is final. Anyone, who is brought by the Holy Spirit to simply look in saving faith towards that one Redeeming Sacrifice of Christ, is brought from death unto life and is no longer condemned under the wrath of God.
Just as the snake-bitten Israelites looked to the raised serpent that Moses lifted up and were saved from physical death, those drawn by God to look at and believe on Christ’s Redeeming Sacrifice are saved (quickened) from being spiritually dead in their sins.

The Catholic model does not produce the same final result. Christ’s Sacrifice is not a full payment for our sins as you try to claim. “The price” paid by Jesus, as described by Catholics, results in what you call “Jesus’ infinite merit” that provides the needed grace, which can then only be dispensed by your church. A person can not look to what Jesus did and “whosoever believeth in Him” and His Redemptive Sacrifice would then be “eternally” saved. A Catholic has to somehow obtain the grace of Jesus’ infinite merit through the Catholic sacraments etc. Christ’s one Sacrifice can not really be described as a “full price” for our sins as you claim. Much more must be done to save a person from their sins.

This difference in the two models is not “slight” at all. One has Christ paying completely the full price “penalty” for a believer’s sins and the other only provides a source of grace that must be applied further to a Catholic’s own “graced”-merits needed to pay the full price for their sins.

 

[anthony022071]

The title I gave this thread has been proven to be correct. Your church does not accept that Christ literally “His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree”. Your church must concentrate only on the sacrifice of Jesus Himself to pay for our sin.

A literal interpretation does not make sense,because sins are borne in the conscience,not in the body. Jesus bore our sins in his body in the sense that he atoned for them by his bodily suffering and death.

Christ, as a literal Sin-Bearer Who suffered our deserved punishment for those sins as our Substitute, would make His one Sacrifice on the Cross a non-repeatable or non-continuing Sacrifice.

If it is non-continuing,then it can only have saved those who sinned before it happened,but not all those who have sinned after it happened. Jesus’ sacrifice is an eternal reality as well as a historical reality. We must participate in his sacrifice for it to save us. This is done by taking up our own cross – that is,by obeying his commandments – and by way of the Eucharist,in which Jesus’ sacrifice is made present to us.

It was “finished!”, as He declared before He died, and no further payment was necessary from then on.

He meant that his earthly work of atonement was finished,not that we do not have to do our own work. We must obey his commandments to be saved.

To later claim that His one Sacrifice continues or could be added to in any way, is to deny what Christ did “by Himself” and sealed with His Shed Blood to completely redeem those given to believe and accept Christ’s one Sacrifice. A faith in an unfinished or continuing sacrifice is not a saving faith.

Then why did Paul say that he is crucified with Christ on the cross,and that he suffers for the Church to make up what was lacking in Jesus’ sacrifice?

See posts 336,342,343.