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

[Robert_in_SD]

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. I have to agree with Phil. It is truly amazing that you came through 353 posts, in which I and others showed you repeatedly that your original premise and your set of erroneous presumptions about the Catholic Church were incorrect, only to have you arrive unchanged, and still spewing the same hyperbolic rhetoric that you used to initiate the thread. What a collosal waste of our time.

I wish you had been honest with us at the outset and told us that nothing we said would be considered by you in the least. I would have spent my time engaged in a more productive activity. Oh well. I’m finished here.

I’ll remember you in my prayers, and ask that the Lord send the Holy Spirit to soften your heart and open your ears to the truth of His Church.

Peace be with you,
Robert

 

[guanophore]

Hi Guanophore (aka dung-lover?)

Very nutritious stuff!

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…

I agree, it requires a different understanding of hell, as well as redemption. One must depart from the "punitive’ understanding of hell, specially triumphed by Dante. Hell is, ulitmately, another expression of God’s love. He has created us in His image and likeness, and the free will is complete permission from Him to exist without His presence. He, in His love for His creation, honors the choice to be apart from Him. He honored the choice of Lucifer and his followers in this way, and also honors ours. This is part of the free, faithful, fruitful giving of Himself. He is even willing to give us up eternally to honor the freedom He has given. This is also why it is a mistake to equate “nothing can separate us from His love” with salvation. God will continue to love us, even while He watches us pass into the gates of hell.

 

[Philthy]

Hi brkn1! Thanks for responding again…
brkn1;:

The two models you describe do not differ “slightly” as you describe and they can not be compared as having the same result.

Well, they could be described that way, but what you mean to say is that you dont see it that way.

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.

Both models embrace the “one Sacrifice” of Jesus.
Both models embrace that it was for us and “our” sins that Christ suffered.
Both models embrace that the sacrifice is “at the hand of the Father”
Both models embrace that the sacrifice is “forever complete at the death of Jesus”
Both models embrace that Christ “bore our sins in his flesh”
I see a lot of common ground.

The result of that Sacrifice is final.

Please explain further. I see the result of that Sacrifice as ongoing: every day people come to faith in Christ and are forgiven through that same sacrifice; everyday saved people confess their sins and are forgiven through that same sacrifice. It goes on and on in time… And before you finish explaining, please carefully articulate how the fact that it is final relates specifically to the vicarious substitue model and not the sacrifical atonement model, ok?

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.

Yup, this is true under both models. The finished sacrifice is ongoing in efficacy.

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.

True under both models. If you meant to imply that those Israelites couldnt be bitten by a snake again and suffer death you are mistaken.

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.

Yes it is, and yes we do! You keep denying it however. Its frustrating.

“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.

False in the sense that you mean it. God is free to dispense his Grace as he sees fit. that is why the Catholic Church believes that Protestants and others can be saved without partaking of the sacraments. Its right in the Catechism. You are wrong.
God has bound himself to dispense grace through the Sacraments administered by the Church, but he has not limited himself to the Sacraments as the only means of dispensing grace.

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.

See above. The NT has so much more in it than John 3:16 - much of it deals with admonitions to saved believers about what constitutes remaining united to Christ, sins to avoid, staying awake, not stumbling, etc etc. That is the ongoing point of the Sacraments - having the supernatural strength to persevere to the end to be saved.

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.

Sorry - this is not an accurate representation of either position, but I thank you for finally stating why you think there is such a big difference. In short you believe the vicarious sin bearer substitute is consistent with the theology of Once Saved Always Saved. You are correct that Catholics - and most Protestants, actually - do not embrace that theology. It’s irreconciliable with a vast amount of Scripture. That is a topic best addressed on another thread.
Thanks again!!

 

[Philthy]

Very nutritious stuff!
I agree, it requires a different understanding of hell, as well as redemption. One must depart from the "punitive’ understanding of hell, specially triumphed by Dante. Hell is, ulitmately, another expression of God’s love. He has created us in His image and likeness, and the free will is complete permission from Him to exist without His presence. He, in His love for His creation, honors the choice to be apart from Him. He honored the choice of Lucifer and his followers in this way, and also honors ours. This is part of the free, faithful, fruitful giving of Himself. He is even willing to give us up eternally to honor the freedom He has given. This is also why it is a mistake to equate “nothing can separate us from His love” with salvation. God will continue to love us, even while He watches us pass into the gates of hell.

I have a feeling there is another way that Hell is “another expression of God’s love”. You know how in the OT to see God meant certain death? In the same sense, when we have chosen self over God and are not disposed to the Light, if we were to be put in the unveiled presence of our Infinitely Holy Lord we simply could not bear it - it would be dreadful. Hell is a bad destination, make no mistake about it, but it may represent a better state than being eternally in God’s presence when we are eternally indisposed to do so. In that sense it is a loving thing God does…

Thanks again for all your great posts…may our Lord bless and protect you

 

[guanophore]

I have a feeling there is another way that Hell is "another expression of God's love".  You know how in the OT to see God meant certain death?  In the same sense, when we have chosen self over God and are not disposed to the Light, if we were to be put in the unveiled presence of our Infinitely Holy Lord we simply could not bear it - it would be dreadful.  Hell is a bad destination, make no mistake about it, but it may represent a better state than being eternally in God's presence when we are eternally indisposed to do so.  In that sense it is a loving thing God does...

This is a good point, and may be at the heart of why Adam and Eve hid themselves before God in the garden, because they were ashamed.

Thanks again for all your great posts...may our Lord bless and protect you

Thank you for your kind words, and He does! Blessed be HIs name.