Did Christ replace us on the cross

  • Thread starter Thread starter Odell
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Odell

Guest
I would like to know where the church stands on Christ replacing us on the cross. Is that what we believe. Does it say in the bible Christ replaced us? And If the Church does not teach this what is the bigest defference in the meaning of the passion of Christ between the protestants and the Church? Even if it is what we believe I would like to know the major difference in our teachings of the passion if there are any.

thanks
 
Odell said:
I would like to know where the church stands on Christ replacing us on the cross. Is that what we believe. Does it say in the bible Christ replaced us? And If the Church does not teach this what is the bigest defference in the meaning of the passion of Christ between the protestants and the Church? Even if it is what we believe I would like to know the major difference in our teachings of the passion if there are any.

thanks
Click to expand...
We and the protestants generally believe in the same idea of the Vicarious Atonement of Christ on the Cross. So it is true to say that in effect Christ suffered the punishment that each of us deserve so that we in turn might live.
 
mosher said:
We and the protestants generally believe in the same idea of the Vicarious Atonement of Christ on the Cross. So it is true to say that in effect Christ suffered the punishment that each of us deserve so that we in turn might live.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t this imply that the Father unjustly punished an innocent party, His own Son? Would God, could God do that?
 
As Catholics, we believe that Christ is both Priest and Victim in the atoning Sacrifice.

In the Old Testament, the rules for a sacrifice were clear - it had to be something of great value; something beloved, perfect and without blemish.

The blood of the sacrifice does many things: protects us from God’s judgement, washes away our sins, and accompanies our prayers to God.

Christ’s Sacrifice of Himself on the Cross was the greatest sacrifice because there is nothing greater, more beloved, or more perfect than Christ Himself. Also, it became an Eternal sacrifice (meaning that it stands outside of Time) so that it can be authentically re-presented in an unbloody manner at every Mass.

There is also a sense in which the Cross can be seen as a “punishment” for sins but the punishment is ours; not Christ’s - Christ had nothing for which He needed to be punished.
 
Odell said:
I would like to know where the church stands on Christ replacing us on the cross. Is that what we believe. Does it say in the bible Christ replaced us? And If the Church does not teach this what is the bigest defference in the meaning of the passion of Christ between the protestants and the Church? Even if it is what we believe I would like to know the major difference in our teachings of the passion if there are any.

thanks
Click to expand...

If by that you mean, “Is His Death substitionary ?” - definitely: unless you have the means to reconcile God to yourself 🙂​

No - Christ is absolutely Our Substitute, nothing less. He has to be, because we are of ourselves sinners, at enmity with God, totally without any means of reconciliation to God: unless He provides one. And In His Son, He has done exactly that. We need this Substitute, because we are unrighteous, & righteousness is measured by the boundless, spotless, holy Righteousness of God - sinners, because they are at enmity with God, entirely lack this glorious Righteousness; it is a rebuke to them, is hateful to them, it shows that God abominates all sin without exception. So no one can be righteous - except on God’s terms. Jesus Christ is - we are not; therefore, He must pay the debt of sin that sinners could not even begin to pay: He, Alone, must be Our Substitute, & take the full fury of the Father’s Righteous Hatred of sin upon Himself.

And because He has done all this, and has died for us, “the Righteous for the unrighteous”, all those whom God has elected to salvation “from before the foundation of the world” can be justified by Christ’s infinite merits, so as to have reconciliation & peace with God not only potentially, but actually. And it is by justification through faith in Him that we are reconciled with God, because then His infinite merits become ours - and just as He is God’s Son by nature, we become adopted sons & daughters of God by grace. ##
 
Yes, both Catholics and Protestants believe that “Christ died for our sins” (vicarious atonement); but, as usual, we don’t agree on what this term means.

Protestants typically believe in a direct substitution: Christ paid the penalty (death) for me.

Catholics believe Christ’s sacrifice was substitutionary in the sense that His sacrifice was a propitiation.

Yes, He physically died as we deserve, but we also deserve eternal damnation—is Christ suffering eternal, never-ending damnation in Hell right now? Of course not, He’s in heaven.

So His sacrifice isn’t strictly substitutionary, in the sense that since He already suffered physical death, I don’t need to physically die.

His sacrifice is a propitiation in the sense that His sacrifice *pleads **for mercy *from the Father (not directly *pays *the Father) with an infinite merit that super-abundantly outweighs all of mankind’s insult to God.
 
Is there any major differinces between us and protestants? Do we view his suffering any different?

And what does it mean by Him replacing us if this is what we believe than wouldnt it seem that God only sees his sacrafice in us sinners and does not see the sinner sin? I know this is not what the Church teaches. But if he replaces us dosnt that sorda make since?

Just want some answers to these questions I have. Thanks
 
Odell said:
Is there any major differinces between us and protestants? Do we view his suffering any different?

And what does it mean by Him replacing us if this is what we believe than wouldnt it seem that God only sees his sacrafice in us sinners and does not see the sinner sin? I know this is not what the Church teaches. But if he replaces us doesnt that sorda make since?
Click to expand...
Jesus doesn’t replace us; Jesus makes atonement for us. We still have to partake of His Sacrifice, though, and be made perfect through the cleansing of sins.

God can neither deceive nor be deceived - any explanation that involves God deceiving Himself, therefore, must be false.
 
Odell said:
I would like to know where the church stands on Christ replacing us on the cross. Is that what we believe. Does it say in the bible Christ replaced us? And If the Church does not teach this what is the bigest defference in the meaning of the passion of Christ between the protestants and the Church? Even if it is what we believe I would like to know the major difference in our teachings of the passion if there are any.

thanks
Click to expand...
Christ is our saviour and our “Redeemer”. One could say that he is the coupon that we turn in when we don’t have enough to make it on our own 👍 - this is what I was taught as a protestant and I haven’t witnessed a different teaching in the Catholic church.

As for the passion of Christ, I can only speak for the protestant church that I was raised in, but we never even discussed the passion. I’m sure that the good people from my childhood church were moved and ***enlightened ***by Mel Gibson’s movie.

Another neat thought is that in the Old Testament the sacrifice had to be perfect but not the person for whom the sacrifice was being made :bowdown2: :bowdown2:
 
VociMike said:
Doesn’t this imply that the Father unjustly punished an innocent party, His own Son? Would God, could God do that?
Click to expand...
No, it was freely given. This is why we don’t believe in a juridical mode of salvation. Sometimes the idea of the vicarious atonement lends to this idea but rather it was a free offering to the Father and a free reception by the Father for our sake.

Also, as Alterum noted we do not believe in a penal substitution meaning that Christ suffered the penalty for sin that we all should suffer. If this were so then Baptism would not be necessary. Rather, the idea of the atonement is that it restores us to a state that we can received Sanctifying Grace through the reparation of the relationship between God and Man. By this we are able to act, by grace, in such a way that we can attain heaven. We still merit nothing but death and hell but by the grace of God in the Pasch of Christ we are able to be lifted up from bondage into the freedom that is the participation in the Divine Life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top