Imputation vs Infusion

[James248]

2 Corinthians 5:21 God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.

Catholics usually interpret this verse as saying that Jesus took the penalty we deserve so that those who believe in Him may be righteous as He is righteous.

Reformed Theology takes this verse to refer to double imputation: Christ’s righteousness covers our sinful state. However, in this sense we do not truly become righteous; we are merely piles of dung covered by snow, as Martin Luther stated. In Reformed Theology, Christ’s death merely covers our sins: it doesn’t conquer them.

I do not intend to offend anyone who holds to Reformed Theology in this post.

 

[fhansen]

Yes, in Catholic theology we not only receive the grace of forgiveness: “Your sins are forgiven”, but also the grace to overcome sin: “Now go, and sin no more.” God doesn’t suddenly, with the advent of Christ, decide to set aside or ignore justice, but rather to restore it to His wayward creation, when the time was ripe in human history. From this perspective there’s a purpose and a plan behind the whole drama of the Fall and all the good and bad, with all the pain and suffering, that followed. God has been patiently working out His plan of salvation since the beginning. And He didn’t create man to sin. And we’re not here now simply to learn that we can’t possibly refrain from sin, but rather that we can’t possibly refrain from sin *apart from God. *. Man was made for communion with God. Our wholeness, our moral integrity, our happiness, depend on this relationship. The essence of the New Covenant is summed up in these verses: “Apart from Me you can do nothing” (John 15:5), and “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Matt19:26).

God justifies man, He makes us just, via our union with Him. This union is established-or re-established, by faith, in response to grace, to God’s calling, reversing the alienation between man and God initiated by Adam. This union is described in verse 34 in the New Covenant prophecy of Jer 31: “No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the LORD. And the justification, the infused justice, is described in verse 33: “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.” By this we learn that the law cannot justify us, as per the Old Covenant, but rather that God, alone, can justify man. We don’t prove our righteousness and therefore our worthiness before God by fulfilling the law first of all, but instead we humbly come to God first of all in our unworthiness and He makes us righteous, or just, as we were created to be.

 

[PluniaZ]

The best explanation of this verse that I have seen is from Saint Gregory Nazianzen:

“But, in the character of the Form of a Servant, He condescends to His fellow servants, nay, to His servants, and takes upon Him a strange form, bearing all me and mine in Himself, that in Himself He may exhaust the bad, as fire does wax, or as the sun does the mists of earth; and that I may partake of His nature by the blending.”

newadvent.org/fathers/310230.htm

 

[jcrichton]

2 Corinthians 5:21 God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.

Catholics usually interpret this verse as saying that Jesus took the penalty we deserve so that those who believe in Him may be righteous as He is righteous.

Reformed Theology takes this verse to refer to double imputation: Christ’s righteousness covers our sinful state. However, in this sense we do not truly become righteous; we are merely piles of dung covered by snow, as Martin Luther stated. In Reformed Theology, Christ’s death merely covers our sins: it doesn’t conquer them.

I do not intend to offend anyone who holds to Reformed Theology in this post.

Hi, James!

The problem with such understanding is that it goes against God’s Pronouncements:

16 Your hands are covered with blood, wash, make yourselves clean. Take your wrong-doing out of my sight. Cease to do evil. 17 Learn to do good, search for justice, help the oppressed, be just to the orphan, plead for the widow. 18 ‘Come now, let us talk this over, says Yahweh. Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.

(Isaiah 1:16-18)
How can Luther or anyone else understand: “cover” or ‘let’s pretend’ or ‘I’ll keep a record of your sins’ or ‘your sins remain, they will simply be covered?’

Man can, through eisegesis and pride, see what God has not Revealed and deny what Gad *has *Revealed!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Richca]

2 Corinthians 5:21 God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.

Catholics usually interpret this verse as saying that Jesus took the penalty we deserve so that those who believe in Him may be righteous as He is righteous.

Reformed Theology takes this verse to refer to double imputation: Christ’s righteousness covers our sinful state. However, in this sense we do not truly become righteous; we are merely piles of dung covered by snow, as Martin Luther stated. In Reformed Theology, Christ’s death merely covers our sins: it doesn’t conquer them.

I do not intend to offend anyone who holds to Reformed Theology in this post.

Reformed theology as you state it is not catholic teaching. The Council of Trent addressed this issue against the teaching of the protestant reformers.

Decree on Justification, Chapter 7:
This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

We become the righteousness of God through the infusion of the sanctifying grace that Jesus won for us on Calvary and which Adam and Eve lost for us in the Garden of Eden. Sanctifying grace is bestowed upon us at baptism. What does the washing of the water signify at baptism? The water touches the body but cleanses the soul. Water cleanses, it is not merely used for covering over stains, but getting rid and wiping out the stains entirely. This is what sanctifying grace does to the soul. It does not merely cover over stains and blemishes such as sins, but it cleanses the soul of them entirely. As St Paul said, a believer in Christ who is baptized becomes a new creation in Christ. The soul before and after the grace of baptism is analogous to that of glass window that is dirty and then cleansed. The cleaner the glass window, the more sunlight passes through it and it participates in the nature of light as it were. Similarly, the light of God’s grace is like the sunlight and the more cleaner a soul is from its sins, the more does that soul reflect as it were the grace of God which is a participation in the divine nature and become brightsome. This is becoming sanctified and sanctification.

 

[De_Maria]

I think everyone has been very thorough in answering your question. I don’t want to change anything nor contradict anything they’ve said. I merely want to add something for consideration.

Re: Imputation vs Infusion

Not “vs”. Not either/or. Both/and.

What does “imputation” mean?

It is a “forensic”, “legal”, or “accounting” term. It means that God judges the soul.

Does God judge every man’s soul? Yes. He does. Imputation and infusion occur every time one approaches the Sacraments.

Let me produce a couple of other verses:

Romans 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

but the doers of the law who will be justified.

First God imputes righteousness upon the doers of the law. Then, they are infused with the grace of justification.

Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,

5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness

First, God judges our deeds righteous. Then, He infuses us with the grace of justification.

This is a gift of God. We do not earn justification. But justification is not gifted to anyone who does not do God’s will.

 

[po18guy]

Careful of anything named “reformed.” That is a term used to describe a product, not of Church council, but of the rebel’s ego.

 

[PJM]

2 Corinthians 5:21 God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.

Catholics usually interpret this verse as saying that Jesus took the penalty we deserve so that those who believe in Him may be righteous as He is righteous.

NO my friend that is not the teaching of the RCC

FROM HAYDOCK’S COMMENTARY:

Ver. 21. Him (Christ) who knew no sin, (who had never sinned, nor was capable of sinning) he (God) hath made [4] sin for us. I had translated, with some French translators, he hath made a sacrifice for sin, as it is expounded by St. Augustine and many others, and grounded upon the authority of the Scriptures, in which the sacrifices for sins are divers times called sins, as Osee iv. 8. and in several places in Leviticus, by the Hebrew word Chattat, which signifies a sin, and is translated a victim for sin. But as this is not the only interpretation, and that my design is always a literal translation of the text, not a paraphrase, upon second thoughts I judged it better to follow the very words of the Greek, as well as of the Latin text. For besides the exposition already mentioned, others expound these words, him he hath made sin for us, to signify that he made Christ like unto sinners, a mortal man, with the similitude of sin. Others that he made he reputed a sinner; with the wicked was he reputed; (Mark xv. 28.) God having laid upon him all our iniquities. (Isaias liii. 6.) — That we might be made the justice of God in him; that is, that we might be justified and sanctified by God’s sanctifying grace, and the justice we receive from him. (Witham) — Sin for us. That is, to be a sin-offering, a victim for sin. (Challoner)END QUOTES

Reformed Theology takes this verse to refer to double imputation: Christ’s righteousness covers our sinful state. However, in this sense we do not truly become righteous; we are merely piles of dung covered by snow, as Martin Luther stated. In Reformed Theology, Christ’s death merely covers our sins: it doesn’t conquer them.

I do not intend to offend anyone who holds to Reformed Theology in this post.

In case there me some who are unaware in the OT sin “forgiveness” WAS this covering over; but NOW under GRACE the Catholic Ordained have the fullness of God’s gifts and do actually in the NAME of Jesus and in His stead actually DO forgive sins: John 20:19-23.

GBY

 

[ericc]

2 Corinthians 5:21 God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.

Catholics usually interpret this verse as saying that Jesus took the penalty we deserve so that those who believe in Him may be righteous as He is righteous.

That is only one out of of a few contending Catholic soteriology. There are problems with the above approach such as:

1. Immorality of punishing an innocent person for the sins of others
2. The sins of the guilty still need to be punished Rev 20:12-15. Which resulted in double punishment, once by Christ and again by the damned. This is immoral too and makes the suffering of Jesus pointless.
   3.Penal substitution does not conveyed the sense of the Loving Father as told by the parable of the Prodigal Son. There is not a single instance of God desiring or intent to punish Jesus so as to appease His wrath in the 4 gospels. The few times that the Father spoke of his Son were all supportive.Mat 3:17, Mat 17:2., John 12:28. Not a hint of anger. What father would punish his own innocent child just to take out the anger caused by others? That is not a good example nor just portrayal of God’s loving nature at all.

So what do we make out of what the verse mean? We know Jesus never sinned. He wasn’t made a sinner but “sin”. The wages of sin is death. I am attempting to tie a number of verses together so that a cohesive meaning can be extracted out without characterising God as a mean and vengeful being and yet maintaining Biblical inerrancy. i.e all relevant verses must still be valid within permissible flexibility of interpretation.

1. Jesus being the second Adam, representing the human race to repaired the breach between Man and God though his obedience to His Father’s will.
2. Jesus representing the human race, takes up responsibility for the sins of his people although he has no personal sins. The King of Kings takes up responsibility for the whole human race.
3. He pays the price for human collective Sin, his death. Ironically executed by his own people. Hence his death redeems all, but not all are saved. His death offers the potentiality for salvation but does not guarantee all will cooperate with his free gift.
4. Although as head of the human race, he shoulders collectively its guilt and its punishment, but in no way dispense with individual guilt which is subject to His Judgement. John 5:22.
5. Jesus, the Lamb of God, is the scapegoat that takes away the sins of the world. Lev 16:5-30. John 11:50.
6. “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” Deu 21:23. To demonstrate that the crucifixion of Jesus is wrong i.e. is not under God’s curse, God raised Jesus from the dead.

There may be other verses which I may not have tied up completely and I seek your help to plug the holes. This topic of God that need to be appeased by the death of his own son have bugged me for years but attending a Christology seminar have helped me see things differently. In my worldview, God the Father is not the main actor in Jesus’s suffering. He permits Evil done even to his Son. And that Evil is from Man. Yes, we were the ones who did it to him. The ones he tried to protect/cover/redeem/save.

 

[jcrichton]

That is only one out of of a few contending Catholic soteriology. There are problems with the above approach such as:

1. Immorality of punishing an innocent person for the sins of others
2. The sins of the guilty still need to be punished Rev 20:12-15. Which resulted in double punishment, once by Christ and again by the damned. This is immoral too and makes the suffering of Jesus pointless.
   3.Penal substitution does not conveyed the sense of the Loving Father as told by the parable of the Prodigal Son. There is not a single instance of God desiring or intent to punish Jesus so as to appease His wrath in the 4 gospels. The few times that the Father spoke of his Son were all supportive.Mat 3:17, Mat 17:2., John 12:28. Not a hint of anger. What father would punish his own innocent child just to take out the anger caused by others? That is not a good example nor just portrayal of God’s loving nature at all.

So what do we make out of what the verse mean? We know Jesus never sinned. He wasn’t made a sinner but “sin”. The wages of sin is death. I am attempting to tie a number of verses together so that a cohesive meaning can be extracted out without characterising God as a mean and vengeful being and yet maintaining Biblical inerrancy. i.e all relevant verses must still be valid within permissible flexibility of interpretation.

1. Jesus being the second Adam, representing the human race to repaired the breach between Man and God though his obedience to His Father’s will.
2. Jesus representing the human race, takes up responsibility for the sins of his people although he has no personal sins. The King of Kings takes up responsibility for the whole human race.
3. He pays the price for human collective Sin, his death. Ironically executed by his own people. Hence his death redeems all, but not all are saved. His death offers the potentiality for salvation but does not guarantee all will cooperate with his free gift.
4. Although as head of the human race, he shoulders collectively its guilt and its punishment, but in no way dispense with individual guilt which is subject to His Judgement. John 5:22.
5. Jesus, the Lamb of God, is the scapegoat that takes away the sins of the world. Lev 16:5-30. John 11:50.
6. “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” Deu 21:23. To demonstrate that the crucifixion of Jesus is wrong i.e. is not under God’s curse, God raised Jesus from the dead.

There may be other verses which I may not have tied up completely and I seek your help to plug the holes. This topic of God that need to be appeased by the death of his own son have bugged me for years but attending a Christology seminar have helped me see things differently. In my worldview, God the Father is not the main actor in Jesus’s suffering. He permits Evil done even to his Son. And that Evil is from Man. Yes, we were the ones who did it to him. The ones he tried to protect/cover/redeem/save.

Hi, Eric!

I think that what many miss from this equation is that Jesus was not forced into becoming the “scape” goat; He was the Lamb of God Who Takes Away the Sin of the World:

53 Or do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father who would promptly send more than twelve legions of angels to my defence? 54 But then, how would the scriptures be fulfilled that say this is the way it must be?’

(St. Matthew 26:53-54)

11 ‘You would have no power over me’ replied Jesus ‘if it had not been given you from above; that is why the one who handed me over to you has the greater guilt.’ (St. John 19:11)

17 The Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me; I lay it down of my own free will, and as it is in my power to lay it down, so it is in my power to take it up again; and this is the command I have been given by my Father.’ (St. John 10:17-18)
Maran atha!

Angel

 

[James248]

That is only one out of of a few contending Catholic soteriology. There are problems with the above approach such as:

1. Immorality of punishing an innocent person for the sins of others
2. The sins of the guilty still need to be punished Rev 20:12-15. Which resulted in double punishment, once by Christ and again by the damned. This is immoral too and makes the suffering of Jesus pointless.
   3.Penal substitution does not conveyed the sense of the Loving Father as told by the parable of the Prodigal Son. There is not a single instance of God desiring or intent to punish Jesus so as to appease His wrath in the 4 gospels. The few times that the Father spoke of his Son were all supportive.Mat 3:17, Mat 17:2., John 12:28. Not a hint of anger. What father would punish his own innocent child just to take out the anger caused by others? That is not a good example nor just portrayal of God’s loving nature at all.

So what do we make out of what the verse mean? We know Jesus never sinned. He wasn’t made a sinner but “sin”. The wages of sin is death. I am attempting to tie a number of verses together so that a cohesive meaning can be extracted out without characterising God as a mean and vengeful being and yet maintaining Biblical inerrancy. i.e all relevant verses must still be valid within permissible flexibility of interpretation.

1. Jesus being the second Adam, representing the human race to repaired the breach between Man and God though his obedience to His Father’s will.
2. Jesus representing the human race, takes up responsibility for the sins of his people although he has no personal sins. The King of Kings takes up responsibility for the whole human race.
3. He pays the price for human collective Sin, his death. Ironically executed by his own people. Hence his death redeems all, but not all are saved. His death offers the potentiality for salvation but does not guarantee all will cooperate with his free gift.
4. Although as head of the human race, he shoulders collectively its guilt and its punishment, but in no way dispense with individual guilt which is subject to His Judgement. John 5:22.
5. Jesus, the Lamb of God, is the scapegoat that takes away the sins of the world. Lev 16:5-30. John 11:50.
6. “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” Deu 21:23. To demonstrate that the crucifixion of Jesus is wrong i.e. is not under God’s curse, God raised Jesus from the dead.

There may be other verses which I may not have tied up completely and I seek your help to plug the holes. This topic of God that need to be appeased by the death of his own son have bugged me for years but attending a Christology seminar have helped me see things differently. In my worldview, God the Father is not the main actor in Jesus’s suffering. He permits Evil done even to his Son. And that Evil is from Man. Yes, we were the ones who did it to him. The ones he tried to protect/cover/redeem/save.

In Isaiah 53 it explicitly says “The Lord was pleased to crush him in infirmity, for his suffering became an offering for sin.” In John 10, Jesus says, “I received this command from My Father.”

 

[PJM]

That is only one out of of a few contending Catholic soteriology. There are problems with the above approach such as

That is only one out of of a few contending Catholic soteriology. There are problems with the above approach such as:

1. Immorality of punishing an innocent person for the sins of others

The Dogma of Original sin comes to mind. …Clearly GOD’s thoughts are NOT ours.​

Isa. 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts.

This is Divine {PERFECT] Justice

1. The sins of the guilty still need to be punished Rev 20:12-15. Which resulted in double punishment, once by Christ and again by the damned. This is immoral too and makes the suffering of Jesus pointless.

Please explain “again by the damned” Is your point that Christ suffering in a literal sense cannot be for nought?

Jesus suffered because the TRINITY has determined that such was the “only” acceptable to THEM, payment for the Original Sins of A & E; BUT also to model for us the path to heaven:

Lk 14:27 And whosoever doth not carry his cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

Phil 2:8 He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. Life ID thee GOD TEST: Isa. 43: 7 & 11

3.Penal substitution does not convey the sense of the Loving Father as told by the parable of the Prodigal Son. There is not a single instance of God desiring or intent to punish Jesus so as to appease His wrath in the 4 gospels. The few times that the Father spoke of his Son were all supportive.Mat 3:17, Mat 17:2., John 12:28. Not a hint of anger. What father would punish his own innocent child just to take out the anger caused by others? That is not a good example nor just portrayal of God’s loving nature at all

AGREED

So what do we make out of what the verse mean? We know Jesus never sinned. He wasn’t made a sinner but “sin”. The wages of sin is death. I am attempting to tie a number of verses together so that : a cohesive meaning can be extracted out without characterizing God as a mean and vengeful being and yet maintaining Biblical inerrancy. i.e all relevant verses must still be valid within permissible flexibility of interpretation.

1. Jesus being the second Adam, representing the human race to repair the breach between Man and God though his obedience to His Father’s will.

1. Jesus representing the human race, takes up responsibility for the sins of his people although he has no personal sins. The King of Kings takes up responsibility for the whole human race

Not so
Read Gen 1:26-27 & Jn 4:23-24 and reconcile the two.

Gen. is fulfilled by GOD GIFTING humanity [alone] with a mind, intellect and FREEWILL, all Godly attributes in their nature. Each a Spiritual Reality given so that man COULD
[Isa. 43:7 & 21] FREELY choose his own Eternal destiny.
.

1. He pays the price for human collective Sin, his death. Ironically executed by his own people. Hence his death redeems all, but not all are saved

. His death offers the potentiality for salvation but does not guarantee all will cooperate with his free gift.

Correct: Redemption is not the same as “SALVATION” ALL ARE Redeemed and some are saved BY THEIR LIFE CHOICES

1. Although as head of the human race, he shoulders collectively its guilt and its punishment, but in no way dispense with individual guilt which is subject to His Judgement. John 5:22

John.5: 22 The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son,
TRUE BUT A BIT MISLEADING:

God WILL, because as GOD He MUST “make” [affirm is a more correct term here as it s WE who choose our Eternal reward by our life choices:

Heb.6: 10 “For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do.”

Rev.2: 23 “and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches shall know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve.”

So in effect GOD is dare I say “only” affirming OUR Life choices, and then announcing the Just rewards of same.

1. Jesus, the Lamb of God, is the scapegoat that takes away the sins of the world. Lev 16:5-30. John 11:50?QUOTE]

REPLY on 2 consecutive POST REPLIES

 

[PJM]

PART 2

INDEED! But here is HOW, He God, NOW desires it to be accomplished:

John.20: 19 t-23
On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. **As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." **B]And when he had said this, he breathed ON THEM, and said TO THEM “Receive the Holy Spirit. If YOU forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if YOU retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

1. “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” Deu 21:23. To demonstrate that the crucifixion of Jesus is wrong i.e. is not under God’s curse, God raised Jesus from the dead

.

No friend, NOT “wrong”, rather Divinely Ordained and prophesied by Jesus:

Mt. 20:17-20 “And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside, and on the way he said to them, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and deliver him to the Gentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified, and he will be raised on the third day”

There may be other verses which I may not have tied up completely and I seek your help to plug the holes. This topic of God that need to be appeased by the death of his own son has bugged me for years but attending a Christology seminar has helped me see things differently. In my worldview, God the Father is not the main actor in Jesus’s suffering. He permits Evil done even to his Son. And that Evil is from Man. Yes, we were the ones who did it to him. The ones he tried to protect/cover/redeem/save.

Your final statement requires some clarification.
I think it is best to understand that what Christ Did, accomplished as He DESIRED To Do does not include any sort of “covering” As I indicated earlier; each of us will be “Judged” based upon ALL of our life-choices. Heb. 6:10 & Rev. 2:23

What Christ DID accomplish is the “Redemption” of all Created humanity; past, present and future. WHAT THIS MEANS is that Now the gates of heaven were NOW OPENED, having been closed even before they were used, as a [one of the] consequences to the Sins of Adam and Eve.

Christ Passion and Death by itself did not save anyone [the so called Good-thief] being a beneficiary by association and Divine Mercy…… Salvation as is indicated many times in the NT, is to be worked out in our life -times.

1 Peter 1: 17 “Now if you invoke as Father him who judges impartially according to each one’s works, conduct yourselves with reverence during the time of your sojourning, “

Matt.19: 17 “And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.”

Rom.2: 13 “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.”

THANKS FOR A GREAT POST!
GBY
Patrick

 

[ericc]

Hi, Eric!

I think that what many miss from this equation is that Jesus was not forced into becoming the “scape” goat; He was the Lamb of God Who Takes Away the Sin of the World:

Maran atha!

Angel

He was made the scapegoat by the High Priest (Jn11:50) and Jesus willingly accepted it. Could he avoided his fate? He could but he chose obedience to his Father’s will. The Scriptures must be fulfilled. Jesus knew what was to come.

 

[ericc]

ericc;14877570:

That is only one out of of a few contending Catholic soteriology. There are problems with the above approach such as:

The Dogma of Original sin comes to mind. …Clearly GOD’s thoughts are NOT ours.​

Isa. 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts.

OS guilt was not passed on. The state of defectiveness was passed on. Adam and Eve can not pass on to their offsprings what they no longer have. We cannot inherit from our parents what they don’t have. There is no guilt involved per se.

Please explain “again by the damned” Is your point that Christ suffering in a literal sense cannot be for nought?

If Jesus was already punished for our sins, come Judgement Day or prior, the damned in Hell are also punished for their sins. Why the double punishment? For those damned, what was the purpose of Jesus being punished for their sins since they will be punished eventually?

So what do we make out of what the verse mean? We know Jesus never sinned. He wasn’t made a sinner but “sin”. The wages of sin is death. I am attempting to tie a number of verses together so that : a cohesive meaning can be extracted out without characterizing God as a mean and vengeful being and yet maintaining Biblical inerrancy. i.e all relevant verses must still be valid within permissible flexibility of interpretation.

1. Jesus being the second Adam, representing the human race to repair the breach between Man and God though his obedience to His Father’s will.

1. Jesus representing the human race, takes up responsibility for the sins of his people although he has no personal sins. The King of Kings takes up responsibility for the whole human race

Not so
Read Gen 1:26-27 & Jn 4:23-24 and reconcile the two.

Gen. is fulfilled by GOD GIFTING humanity [alone] with a mind, intellect and FREEWILL, all Godly attributes in their nature. Each a Spiritual Reality given so that man COULD
[Isa. 43:7 & 21] FREELY choose his own Eternal destiny.
.Can you point out which part I wrote is incorrect? I may need to revise it. Is it point 1 or 2? Basically, what I am trying to say is only a spotless sinless man is fit to represent the human race. Typically someone with authority is seen capable/eligible to commit for his people. Someone with a kingship for example.

John.5: 22 The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son,
TRUE BUT A BIT MISLEADING:

Misleading in what sense? The Father appointed the Son as Judge. Jesus already suffered for our sins. As Judge he sentences those deserving of hell to be punished. Those sins which he already suffered for previously. I can understand if someone paid for my debt on my behalf and subsequently demand to be paid in return. The King paid my debt and now he demands payment from me in return. If I am with him, he will look kindly on my debt and be merciful. If I am not, there is a prison he will put me in. As an example the head of a corporation may assume responsibility for the misdeeds of his staff, paid for their mistakes and later on demand the staff to make good their mistakes.

 

[ericc]

PART 2

1. “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” Deu 21:23. To demonstrate that the crucifixion of Jesus is wrong i.e. is not under God’s curse, God raised Jesus from the dead

No friend, NOT “wrong”, rather Divinely Ordained and prophesied by Jesus:

In Acts 2, that was the message Peter told the people of Jerusalem. You killed the wrong guy. And God raised him up. If Jesus were truly cursed, God wouldn’t have done that. (Not withstanding that everything was ordained by God. )

Your final statement requires some clarification.
I think it is best to understand that what Christ Did, accomplished as He DESIRED To Do does not include any sort of “covering” As I indicated earlier; each of us will be “Judged” based upon ALL of our life-choices. Heb. 6:10 & Rev. 2:23

Patrick

Perhaps choice of word “cover” wasn’t so brilliant. In RT speak, the “cover” was supposed to disguise the dung to something more pleasant. I never bought that scam. But I put it in for inclusiveness.

We know the effects of Christ death and resurrection. What wasn’t explained very clearly was HOW the death/resurrection resulted in those effects. For example, we say he takes away the sins of the world. Which act actually did that? How did that act accomplished that. We say he redeemed everyone. How was that done? How did the spilling of his blood actually achieved that? Was there some mechanism that did that? Who got paid for what was owed? When was the debt incurred? Is Satan involved in the deal? How so? I struggled with many questions such as these and I seek enlightenment. No I don’t think the angry Father reflects the Loving Father’s nature. Many attempt to explain the theology but always there are leftover pieces that seemingly does not gel with what was taught about the God we know.

 

[po18guy]

Revelation 21:27: “Nothing impure shall enter it”

If we remain foul, filthy rags, as Luther maintained, how are we supposed to enter the Kingdom under any circumstances, sinfulness covered or not? God sees what is hidden. A snow-covered pile of dung is still impure dung.

Ah, but Marty didn’t like Revelation.

Proof texting single verses leads to error and confusion. 100 trillion denominations (my figure may be too low) stand as concrete proof of that. And, knowing that this would happen, our Lord founded a Church with no writing at all. Zero. Zip. Nada. Read the Didache. Not a single mention of any scripture in it.

 

[ericc]

In Isaiah 53 it explicitly says “The Lord was pleased to crush him in infirmity, for his suffering became an offering for sin.” In John 10, Jesus says, “I received this command from My Father.”

On Isaiah 53, other translations say “Yet it was the will of the Lord to bruise him…” I can not see how God take delight in crushing his own son for the wrong of others. Can you?

John 10. Jesus was obedient to his Father’s will. That’s all. In verse 17, "the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. Contrast with Isaiah 53 where you state that God “delights” in crushing his own son? Can you reconcile these 2 verses? I am sure we are not dealing with a sadist/masochist situation here.

The Father/Son knows the future. There was no reason for the Father to pent/save up his wrath and wait for his son’s incarnation to unleash his anger at him then. In fact it is difficult to pin down where God need to have his wrath appeased. In the Great Flood, God “regretted” making man on earth and grieved. He didn’t need to have his Son suffer then. Just start with a clean slate. No wrath was mentioned.

There were atoning sacrifices in the OT, but I could hardly find one performed just to calm God down. And if the Jews have been dutifully performing their sacrifices at the Temple, what would be a good reason to take it out on your own innocent son centuries later? Why wait for incarnation?

 

[jcrichton]

He was made the scapegoat by the High Priest (Jn11:50) and Jesus willingly accepted it. Could he avoided his fate? He could but he chose obedience to his Father’s will. The Scriptures must be fulfilled. Jesus knew what was to come.

Hi, Eric!

That’s the point. Jesus did not get picked and forced into service… He volunteered, being the Suffering Servant, to Carry the Load for humanity:

27 Now my soul is troubled. What shall I say: Father, save me from this hour? But it was for this very reason that I have come to this hour.

(St. John 12:27)
St. John the Baptist poignantly attests to this:

29 The next day, seeing Jesus coming towards him, John said, ‘Look, there is the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.

(St. John 1:29)
Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

In Acts 2, that was the message Peter told the people of Jerusalem. You killed the wrong guy. And God raised him up. If Jesus were truly cursed, God wouldn’t have done that. (Not withstanding that everything was ordained by God. )

Perhaps choice of word “cover” wasn’t so brilliant. In RT speak, the “cover” was supposed to disguise the dung to something more pleasant. I never bought that scam. But I put it in for inclusiveness.

We know the effects of Christ death and resurrection. What wasn’t explained very clearly was HOW the death/resurrection resulted in those effects. For example, we say he takes away the sins of the world. Which act actually did that? How did that act accomplished that. We say he redeemed everyone. How was that done? How did the spilling of his blood actually achieved that? Was there some mechanism that did that? Who got paid for what was owed? When was the debt incurred? Is Satan involved in the deal? How so? I struggled with many questions such as these and I seek enlightenment. No I don’t think the angry Father reflects the Loving Father’s nature. Many attempt to explain the theology but always there are leftover pieces that seemingly does not gel with what was taught about the God we know.

Hi, Eric!

You are using human reason to determine Divine Revelation.

There are not a Loving and angry Fathers… there’s one Father.

God’s Justice Requires a certain Demand. This Demand could not be met by mere animal sacrifice (Old Covenant) nor human sacrifice (no one is Just, not even one); this Demand required the Self-Sacrifice asked of the Son, the Just One. Jesus is the only Lamb that Could Take Away the Sin of the World:

1 So, since the Law has no more than a reflection of these realities, and no finished picture of them, it is quite incapable of bringing the worshippers to perfection, with the same sacrifices repeatedly offered year after year. 2 Otherwise, the offering of them would have stopped, because the worshippers, when they had been purified once, would have no awareness of sins. 3 Instead of that, the sins are recalled year after year in the sacrifices. 4 Bulls’ blood and goats’ blood are useless for taking away sins, 5 and this is what he said, on coming into the world: You who wanted no sacrifice or oblation, prepared a body for me. 6 You took no pleasure in holocausts or sacrifices for sin; 7 then I said, just as I was commanded in the scroll of the book, ‘God, here I am! I am coming to obey your will.’ 8 Notice that he says first: You did not want what the Law lays down as the things to be offered, that is: the sacrifices, the oblations, the holocausts and the sacrifices for sin, and you took no pleasure in them; 9 and then he says: Here I am! I am coming to obey your will. He is abolishing the first sort to replace it with the second. 10 And this will was for us to be made holy by the offering of his body made once and for all by Jesus Christ.

(Hebrews 10:1-10)
So it is through Jesus’ Sacrifice that all sin is forgiven, razed from existence.

What you fail to see is that it is God Himself that takes our place on the Cross; He takes on our infirmities so that God’s Justice (Wrath) may be quenched/sated:

13 A man can have no greater love than to lay down his life for his friends.

(St. John 15:13)
It is God’s Love of humanity that makes the Sacrificial Lamb possible:

16 Yes, God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not be lost but may have eternal life. 17 For God sent his Son into the world not to condemn the world, but so that through him the world might be saved.

(St. John 3:16-17)
Do you see how it is One Father… God Requires/Demand Justice; yet, His Justice is placated by both His Love and His Mercy! He Provides the means for the prodigal children to Return to Him!

Maran atha!

Angel