First post - mechanism of Christ's sacrifice?

[crisco]

Hi Everybody,

This is my first post. I’ve been reading and enjoying this site for several months. I must say that I’m impressed with the collegiality, charity and overall tone of these forums. From my side, I’m not sure that I bring a whole lot to the table - I’m no theology expert by any means. What I do bring is an open mind (well, that’s my honest hope, anyways).

I’m stepping out of a ‘comfort zone’ by interacting on this forum. Let me explain briefly. I’m a cradle Catholic. Grew up in a somewhat nominal Catholic family (went to Church / Catholic school etc). As I went through high school and into college, I didn’t really live a Christian life however. I ended up dating and marrying an evangelical girl. We’re happily married with kids and attend an evangelical church. For the most part, I bought into (not meant to be derogatory) the whole evangelical view on things Christian (in retrospect, I either didn’t bother, or was not properly catechised as a Catholic - ultimately, I take responsibility for my actions and lack thereof). Recently, I 've begun to question some of the teachings etc that come with this ‘brand’ of Christianity. I think part of me still has some inklings toward the Catholic Church. Ok, that’s the really really short version. I’ll likely expand in another thread another time.

Now - I 've been thinking about many theological questions, and I’ve tried to distil them into one main question. Bear with me as I try to formulate it into something coherent.

One of the key things for me is to try to understand how things work - that’s what I do for a living, actually (in science, not religion). So, I’m naturally curious about mechanisms. My question has to do with the mechanism of salvation in Christianity - and how the Catholic understanding differs from the Protestant one(s). And ultimately, how this affects my view of God etc. As I’ve indicated, I’ve been following a great number of threads on this forum for a while, and have been able to glean some wisdom from many of your postings.

So my question is - How does Christ’s sacrifice ‘work’? On a general level, if I understand correctly, Protestants believe in ‘penal substitution’, while Catholics favor an appeasement model (Orthodox - something slightly different). I’m coming to realize that these differences can have profound impact on many things that stem from the work of Christ on the Cross (forensic versus actual justification, did Christ suffer eternal damnation, for instance).

Can we infer an answer to this question (how does Christ’s sacrifice work?) by looking at what sacrifice meant in the OT? As I understand it, there are many ‘types’ of Christ throughout the Old Testament. Specifically dealing with the theme of ‘sacrifice’, there is the Passover lamb, the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement, the ram instead of Isaac, guilt offerings, among others. What is the Catholic interpretation(s) to these types and how they forshadow Christ’s sacrifice? How do you see Protestant interpretations?

Anyways - probably too many questions for a first post - but I hope I’ve conveyed the main question.

Looking forward to your (name removed by moderator)ut.
In Christ,
crisco

 

[Lazerlike42]

Basically, Protestants often subscribe to a belief called penal substitution. This belief holds that Jesus atoned for our sins by suffering the very same punishment, in every way, that we deserved - going to Hell. Hell is eternal seperation from God, so they believe that when He died on the cross, Jesus actually went to Hell, and so was seperated from God.

Now there are a lot of problems with this. First, Jesus wasn’t in Hell eternally; He rose on the third day. The answer Protestants will give to this is that since Jesus is infinite, even one second in Hell for Him is enough for all of eternity for us. However, this doesn’t work, because if Jesus was seperated from God, then He wasn’t infinite anymore, and so He couldn’t fulfill eternity in Hell for all of us.

This leads into the real problem with the idea: God is not divisible. God is one God in three Divine Persons - the uncreated Creator. If Jesus ever was seperated from God, that means He would stop being God for a moment, but if He was uncreated, He could not stop being God, because what makes God God is that He is uncreated. That is what seperates God from us - He is uncreated, we are not.

The other thing is that that for one thing to be seperated from something, the two things must be different. If Jesus was seperated from God, then He was different from God, so we would have two Gods, not one.

Suffice it to say, if Jesus was ever seperated from God, that would in some way mean that either He wasn’t really God - He wasn’t really uncreated - or that He is actually different from the God He was seperated from, so we would have polytheism.

The way Jesus did save us can be complicated, but it can be explained rather simply.

He saved us in two ways. One is that in the Incarnation, His Divine nature was united to human nature. Now human nature, thanks to the sin of Adam, was a nature that was subject to death. However, when Christ died and that human nature died, His divine nature went along with it, so to speak. He basically ‘filled up’ death by putting into it His infinite Divine nature. Thus, when we are baptized into Him, we are baptized into His death - by being a part of His mystical body, His death has fulfilled the need for our own human nature to die. Also, because His human nature was raised and glorified, by being baptized into His mystical body, ours can be two.

The second way He saved us was by offering satisfaction to the Father. Jesus didn’t merely offer His death on the cross to the Father, but His entire life of perfect obedience - including His death. This is why the book of Hebrews talks about Christ entering into Heaven to appear in the presence of God. You see, in a sacrifice in the OT, two things happened. First, the animal was killed, and then the blood of that slaughter acted as a sort of “key” to allow the priest to enter the tabernacle and offer the animal to God. This is because the death of an animal takes it completely out of human hands and gives it to God. To kill an animal is to send its spirit to God. When Christ died, He also was taken out of human hands and was given to God; this is why the book of Hebrews says that His blood bought Him entrance into the true Holy of Holies, which is Heaven. This is the other reason He had to die - by dying, He was giving His human nature to God - a human nature which had lived a life of perfection. Because He was perfect, this offering plesaed the Father greatly. It pleased Him enough that the Father would give to Christ anything He asked, and what He asks is mercy and forgiveness on us, and the Grace we need to be saved. This is why the book of Hebrews says that Christ is able to save us by making intercession for us with the Father. That act of offering Himself is an act of intercession, because by appearing before the Father He, in His human nature, can ask anything He desires of the Father. This is another reason why the Incarnation is important; it allows a man to ask God for salvation - the man Jesus Christ - whereas if Jesus remained merely Divine with no human nature, He would just be God and would be the one that needed to be asked.

If you want a deeper understanding, please check out the following, or ask questions:

www.soladeiverbum.com/massmain.shtml

 

[Franciscan]

Hi Everybody,

This is my first post. I’ve been reading and enjoying this site for several months. I must say that I’m impressed with the collegiality, charity and overall tone of these forums. From my side, I’m not sure that I bring a whole lot to the table - I’m no theology expert by any means. What I do bring is an open mind (well, that’s my honest hope, anyways).

I’m stepping out of a ‘comfort zone’ by interacting on this forum. Let me explain briefly. I’m a cradle Catholic. Grew up in a somewhat nominal Catholic family (went to Church / Catholic school etc). As I went through high school and into college, I didn’t really live a Christian life however. I ended up dating and marrying an evangelical girl. We’re happily married with kids and attend an evangelical church. For the most part, I bought into (not meant to be derogatory) the whole evangelical view on things Christian (in retrospect, I either didn’t bother, or was not properly catechised as a Catholic - ultimately, I take responsibility for my actions and lack thereof). Recently, I 've begun to question some of the teachings etc that come with this ‘brand’ of Christianity. I think part of me still has some inklings toward the Catholic Church. Ok, that’s the really really short version. I’ll likely expand in another thread another time.

Now - I 've been thinking about many theological questions, and I’ve tried to distil them into one main question. Bear with me as I try to formulate it into something coherent.

One of the key things for me is to try to understand how things work - that’s what I do for a living, actually (in science, not religion). So, I’m naturally curious about mechanisms. My question has to do with the mechanism of salvation in Christianity - and how the Catholic understanding differs from the Protestant one(s). And ultimately, how this affects my view of God etc. As I’ve indicated, I’ve been following a great number of threads on this forum for a while, and have been able to glean some wisdom from many of your postings.

So my question is - How does Christ’s sacrifice ‘work’? On a general level, if I understand correctly, Protestants believe in ‘penal substitution’, while Catholics favor an appeasement model (Orthodox - something slightly different). I’m coming to realize that these differences can have profound impact on many things that stem from the work of Christ on the Cross (forensic versus actual justification, did Christ suffer eternal damnation, for instance).

Can we infer an answer to this question (how does Christ’s sacrifice work?) by looking at what sacrifice meant in the OT? As I understand it, there are many ‘types’ of Christ throughout the Old Testament. Specifically dealing with the theme of ‘sacrifice’, there is the Passover lamb, the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement, the ram instead of Isaac, guilt offerings, among others. What is the Catholic interpretation(s) to these types and how they forshadow Christ’s sacrifice? How do you see Protestant interpretations?

Anyways - probably too many questions for a first post - but I hope I’ve conveyed the main question.

Looking forward to your (name removed by moderator)ut.
In Christ,
crisco

The penal theme is not rejected by Catholic theology.
Christ did fulfill the whhole Old Test. animal system of sacrifice.
His sacrifice was a sin atonement. The ultimate one since

1. His offering wis infinite.
2. He was both priest and victim(freely choosing to offer Himself.

The difference between the Catholic and Prootestant interpretation is on how the fruits of the Paschal Mystery(suffering , death, resurrection, ascension) are distributed.

For most non-Catholics it is an automatic, “covering over” of all sin. All are redeemed and all who claim Christ as their personal Lord and Savior are justified before God and “saved”.

For Catholics the process is more complex…

**Christ perpetually offers that once and for all sacrifice **to the Father in heaven.

He sent the Holy Spirit to animate/sanctify His Mystical Body the Church at Pentecost.

For us to become 'sanctified" by the fruits of the Paschal Mystery we have to become ‘one with Christ’, as a member of His mystical Body(the Church) through Baptism.

From there we have access to all the fuits primarily through the other sacraments. The greatest is the sacrament of the **Eucharist **which is a re-presentation of His sacrifice/resurection. We enter into that moment of calvary and offer our spirirtual sacrifices/our lives to the Father in union with Christ’s offering.
Through the Holy Spirit working in sacraments we become sanctified/transformed (we die to our old selves and take up our new identity in Christ)—Not just "covered over’ sin as the Protestants believe.
So we’re not saved, we’re in the process of sanctification-a life long sacramental process of conversion and renewal.

 

[Verita]

Lazerlike, I have to say… WOW! That was an amazing post. I feel like I’ve gained a whole new level of understanding. Thank you.

 

[Lazerlike42]

The penal theme is not rejected by Catholic theology.

Penal substitution is accepted by Catholic theology insofar as it means that Christ had to suffer death for us, but is untrue insofar if it is taken to mean that Christ suffered our entire penalty, namely, Hell. This is why I said in my post that it was rejected by Catholic theology.

 

[crisco]

Thanks Lazerlike42,
the article you provided is excellent as well. Just what I was looking for.

 

[Franciscan]

Penal substitution is accepted by Catholic theology insofar as it means that Christ had to suffer death for us, but is untrue insofar if it is taken to mean that Christ suffered our entire penalty, namely, Hell. This is why I said in my post that it was rejected by Catholic theology.

Yes. True.

 

[crisco]

Thanks Franciscan, very helpful.

 

[VociMike]

This is a matter for endless meditation. I think it’s worthwhile to start off with a few understandings.

1. God always has known that we would fall, and He always has known that He would save us from that fall. Christ’s mission was not a fallback plan B, but was an integral aspect of our very creation.
2. The Father did not need to be appeased or satisfied or paid back, and most certainly not by the infliction of suffering and death on His own Son. Rather, the Father has always willed that His Son would be our path back to heaven.
3. Nothing in the Old Testament required any particular means of our salvation. Rather, once God had (eternally) settled on our means of salvation, He prepared us for that means via the Old Testament teachings which pointed to that means. He worked backwards from the Incarnation, Passion, Death and Resurrection, you might say.

So, did Christ have to die? I think it is much more profitable to think rather that He chose to die as the most perfect means to affect our salvation. For by His death (as well as by His Incarnation) God has demonstrated that His desire to have us united with Him is greater than the great disaster of our sin. He has thus shown us, in the most perfect way, the doomed nature of our Fall, the love and mercy God has for us, and the fact that He has indeed overcome death (physical and spiritual) just as we may all overcome death (physical and spiritual) through Him. Thus He has made clear for us the nature of the problem, the nature of the solution, and the reality of God and His relationship with us.

 

[crisco]

This is a matter for endless meditation. I think it’s worthwhile to start off with a few understandings.

1. God always has known that we would fall, and He always has known that He would save us from that fall. Christ’s mission was not a fallback plan B, but was an integral aspect of our very creation. I agree completely
2. The Father did not need to be appeased or satisfied or paid back, and most certainly not by the infliction of suffering and death on His own Son. Rather, the Father has always willed that His Son would be our path back to heaven.not exactly sure what you mean here. Didn’t our separation due to sin demand that something be done in order to satisfy God?
3. Nothing in the Old Testament required any particular means of our salvation. Rather, once God had (eternally) settled on our means of salvation, He prepared us for that means via the Old Testament teachings which pointed to that means. He worked backwards from the Incarnation, Passion, Death and Resurrection, you might say.this makes sense - prevenience

So, did Christ have to die? I think it is much more profitable to think rather that He chose to die as the most perfect means to affect our salvation. For by His death (as well as by His Incarnation) God has demonstrated that His desire to have us united with Him is greater than the great disaster of our sin. He has thus shown us, in the most perfect way, the doomed nature of our Fall, the love and mercy God has for us, and the fact that He has indeed overcome death (physical and spiritual) just as we may all overcome death (physical and spiritual) through Him. Thus He has made clear for us the nature of the problem, the nature of the solution, and the reality of God and His relationship with us.

Thanks!

 

[VociMike]

not exactly sure what you mean here. Didn’t our separation due to sin demand that something be done in order to satisfy God?

No, it meant that something had to be done to show us the path back home, to make clear to us (a) what our situation is, and (b) the alternatives - union with God (imperfectly on earth, perfectly in heaven) or separation from God. There is nothing we can do to “satisfy” God, and it makes no sense that God would demand that God satisfy God. No, God does not demand satisfaction. He loves us without condition, and He desires love in return, and only that obedience which is in our true interest. And He gives everything, holding back nothing, but being judicious again in consideration for our true interest. This is the story behind the story of salvation, and it is mirrored (imperfectly, of course) in the human relationship of parent and child.

As C.S. Lewis put it, “Though our feelings come and go, His love for us does not. It is not wearied by our sins, or our indifference; and, therefore, it is quite relentless in its determination that we shall be cured of those sins, at whatever cost to us, at whatever cost to Him.”

 

[Franciscan]

No, it meant that something had to be done to show us the path back home, to make clear to us (a) what our situation is, and (b) the alternatives - union with God (imperfectly on earth, perfectly in heaven) or separation from God. There is nothing we can do to “satisfy” God, and it makes no sense that God would demand that God satisfy God. No, God does not demand satisfaction. He loves us without condition, and He desires love in return, and only that obedience which is in our true interest. And He gives everything, holding back nothing, but being judicious again in consideration for our true interest. This is the story behind the story of salvation, and it is mirrored (imperfectly, of course) in the human relationship of parent and child.

As C.S. Lewis put it, “Though our feelings come and go, His love for us does not. It is not wearied by our sins, or our indifference; and, therefore, it is quite relentless in its determination that we shall be cured of those sins, at whatever cost to us, at whatever cost to Him.”

He did ask for various sacrifices through out the Old Testament.
And in the New - He did say 'Do this in Memory of me" at the Last Supper.
So He does still expect that we offer ourselves in union with Christ-Part of His erternal plan.
By choosing to fulfill the sacrificial system, and by setting up that system in the first place-

God shows the imensity of his love, possibility of forgiveness, the gravity of our sins and the proper attitude of Gratitude that we should have toward God.

 

[VociMike]

He did ask for various sacrifices through out the Old Testament.
And in the New - He did say 'Do this in Memory of me" at the Last Supper.
So He does still expect that we offer ourselves in union with Christ-Part of His erternal plan.
By choosing to fulfill the sacrificial system, and by setting up that system in the first place-

Yes, I certainly agree with all of this. I condensed it greatly when I said that He desires our love (that is, true self-giving love), and that the story behind the story of salvation has been God showing us what is wrong, and showing us the alternative paths out of the wrong, or into it completely.

God shows the imensity of his love, possibility of forgiveness, the gravity of our sins and the proper attitude of Gratitude that we should have toward God.

I don’t think God desires our gratitude, but rather our love. Everything else follows from that - gratitude, adoration, penitence, etc. But otherwise I agree.

 

[Franciscan]

I would also see love over gratitude but in the case of a creature to creator relationship the two go hand in hand.
So we agree.

p.s. Eucharist= Thanksgiving, this is why i emphasised gratitude.

 

[Odell]

Basically, Protestants often subscribe to a belief called penal substitution. This belief holds that Jesus atoned for our sins by suffering the very same punishment, in every way, that we deserved - going to Hell. Hell is eternal seperation from God, so they believe that when He died on the cross, Jesus actually went to Hell, and so was seperated from God.

Now there are a lot of problems with this. First, Jesus wasn’t in Hell eternally; He rose on the third day. The answer Protestants will give to this is that since Jesus is infinite, even one second in Hell for Him is enough for all of eternity for us. However, this doesn’t work, because if Jesus was seperated from God, then He wasn’t infinite anymore, and so He couldn’t fulfill eternity in Hell for all of us.

This leads into the real problem with the idea: God is not divisible. God is one God in three Divine Persons - the uncreated Creator. If Jesus ever was seperated from God, that means He would stop being God for a moment, but if He was uncreated, He could not stop being God, because what makes God God is that He is uncreated. That is what seperates God from us - He is uncreated, we are not.

The other thing is that that for one thing to be seperated from something, the two things must be different. If Jesus was seperated from God, then He was different from God, so we would have two Gods, not one.

Suffice it to say, if Jesus was ever seperated from God, that would in some way mean that either He wasn’t really God - He wasn’t really uncreated - or that He is actually different from the God He was seperated from, so we would have polytheism.

The way Jesus did save us can be complicated, but it can be explained rather simply.

He saved us in two ways. One is that in the Incarnation, His Divine nature was united to human nature. Now human nature, thanks to the sin of Adam, was a nature that was subject to death. However, when Christ died and that human nature died, His divine nature went along with it, so to speak. He basically ‘filled up’ death by putting into it His infinite Divine nature. Thus, when we are baptized into Him, we are baptized into His death - by being a part of His mystical body, His death has fulfilled the need for our own human nature to die. Also, because His human nature was raised and glorified, by being baptized into His mystical body, ours can be two.

The second way He saved us was by offering satisfaction to the Father. Jesus didn’t merely offer His death on the cross to the Father, but His entire life of perfect obedience - including His death. This is why the book of Hebrews talks about Christ entering into Heaven to appear in the presence of God. You see, in a sacrifice in the OT, two things happened. First, the animal was killed, and then the blood of that slaughter acted as a sort of “key” to allow the priest to enter the tabernacle and offer the animal to God. This is because the death of an animal takes it completely out of human hands and gives it to God. To kill an animal is to send its spirit to God. When Christ died, He also was taken out of human hands and was given to God; this is why the book of Hebrews says that His blood bought Him entrance into the true Holy of Holies, which is Heaven. This is the other reason He had to die - by dying, He was giving His human nature to God - a human nature which had lived a life of perfection. Because He was perfect, this offering plesaed the Father greatly. It pleased Him enough that the Father would give to Christ anything He asked, and what He asks is mercy and forgiveness on us, and the Grace we need to be saved. This is why the book of Hebrews says that Christ is able to save us by making intercession for us with the Father. That act of offering Himself is an act of intercession, because by appearing before the Father He, in His human nature, can ask anything He desires of the Father. This is another reason why the Incarnation is important; it allows a man to ask God for salvation - the man Jesus Christ - whereas if Jesus remained merely Divine with no human nature, He would just be God and would be the one that needed to be asked.

If you want a deeper understanding, please check out the following, or ask questions:

www.soladeiverbum.com/massmain.shtml

Ive always heard from protestants that Christ replaced us on the cross. But I still have a hard time with it Im going to check out your site. I havent heard of the whole him dieing and taking the punishment of hell for us. You mean we deserve hell without his sacrifice?

So does chirst replace us only if we cooperate. or does he replace us fully simply by accepting him?

 

[Lazerlike42]

Ive always heard from protestants that Christ replaced us on the cross. But I still have a hard time with it Im going to check out your site. I havent heard of the whole him dieing and taking the punishment of hell for us. You mean we deserve hell without his sacrifice?

So does chirst replace us only if we cooperate. or does he replace us fully simply by accepting him?

We did deserve Hell, yes. The Protestant understanding is that Christ suffered Hell, but Catholics reject this for the reasons in the post I quited.

Christ’s sacrifice is only helpful to us if we cooperate with Him. God forces Himself on nobody. If we don’t want things His way, He won’t force us into it.

 

[crisco]

Along these lines, there’s a really good exchange in some of the recent issues of FIRST THINGS. Alyssa Lyra Pitstick and Edward Oakes discuss Hans urs Von Balthasar’s theology of Christ’s descent to the Dead. Worth reading IMHO. I might pick up her book on the same subject.

 

[Odell]

Thanks

 

[Ghosty]

Didn’t our separation due to sin demand that something be done in order to satisfy God?

It’s important to note that even the Early Fathers speak of satisfaction, but it’s how this satisfaction is understood that is a key difference. In Catholic understanding God did indeed need to be satisfied, but not in terms of wanting to destroy us, but in terms of His just decree about us. Being children of Adam, and seperated from God, we are to die; that is the decree of God and it is perfectly just and fitting that those things which are seperate from the God of Life would not possess Life.

Christ, in dying with our human nature, fulfilled (satisfied) that just demand. It wasn’t because God’s “force of wrath” was expended, but because justice had been satisfied by God Himself, meaning that He did not have to contradict His decree of death for sin. This is why it’s so important that we be Baptized into the Death of Christ, rather than dying in ourselves, because the decree of death for sin is balanced one way or the other.

I recommend reading St. Athanasius’ “On the Incarnation” for this:

spurgeon.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm

Peace and God bless!