New Guy with some questions

[VociMike]

hey, haha thanks. Well my email is nathanwagar@yahoo.com, my military one is getting deleted soon I imagine…Anybody is welcome to privately email me.

I guess my issue is, I don’t understand how he bore our “punishment” for sin. As I myself know, the more I sin, the less I feel, if anything. And since a natural punishment for sin is hell, and Jesus didn’t go to hell (although I’ve read some people that seem to think he did), I am unsure as to the *nature *of his suffering.

I actually think the “bore our punishment for sins” viewpoint is terribly misleading. What could be more immoral than to substitute an innocent victim to take the punishment of a guilty one? Could a man on death row substitute his newborn daughter to be executed in his place? Even if the innocent victim was agreeable, we still would consider it immoral and unacceptable.

I’m much more satisfied with a view that presents Jesus’ actions (and those of Our Father) as intended to (a) show us the deadly consequences of our sin, (b) show us how much God loves us and wants us to be saved from those consequences, and (c) demonstrate that suffering and death are conquered and not to be feared.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I can respect that viewpoint and indeed it is one of the 4 major views of atonement, but I believe that church history and teaching does tend to lean more towards a penal substitution viewpoint.

 

[yellowbicycle]

Regarding #4 - Have your ead CS Lewis Mere Christianity? I think it’s pretty early in the book when he talks about Jesus’ sinless death being the ONLY act that could pay for our sins. I would try to give you a synopsis here, but honestly, I wouldn’t do it justice.

You got alot of answers on mary, but here’s a little more.
I asked the very same thing about her sinless nature.
And someone said that sin changes you, it changes your soul, so to speak. Though you are forgiven of the sin, it took a piece of your innocence - THAT is why she had to be immaculate from her conception.

Another thing, and this is just my little theory on the matter, so take it for what it’s worth…(seriously, what I have here is not apologetics 101…it’s random thoughts from me 101, so…)
Jesus was perfect. And as such, nothing that was imperfect could be joined to him, right? At least not without getting purified first. You can’t pour clean water into a dirty pitcher and expect it to stay clean, right?
Well, when a woman is pregnant there is something called micro-chimerism that happens - cells from the baby enter the mother and some of those cells, the ones that end up in the brain and the heart, remain there for the rest of the mother’s life.
So, consider this - cells from Jesus, cells from the Lord incarnate, LIVED in Mary. How could Hsi pure and divine nature live in an impure woman and remain pure? They couldn’t. To carry Jesus, HER body and soul had to be pure, too.
This doesn’t help with the sinless since birth, but hopefully it does help with the idea that she was sinless, because she had to be.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I can respect that viewpoint and indeed it is one of the 4 major views of atonement, but I believe that church history and teaching does tend to lean more towards a penal substitution viewpoint.

I am not so sure about this…but I’m not an expert and there has been at times confusion. Going by the Catechism, what is meant by “substitution”:

CCC615 “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who “makes himself an offering for sin”, when “he bore the sin of many”, and who “shall make many to be accounted righteous”, for “he shall bear their iniquities”. Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.He made satisfaction rather than took punishment in place of. Prior to Jesus, no human could suffer enough to overcome the sin that prevented man from reconciling to God since the Fall. The mystery of obedient suffering conquers sin. And Jesus, being of perfect innocence, can by His suffering conquer sin. And so we join ourselves to His Passion in the Eucharist and the Church.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Sorry let me rephrase. I was kind of meaning to fix the above as soon as I wrote it. The early theories the church leaned towards were the ransom theories and the christus victor theories. The ransom theory was later done away with because it necessarily implied that the devil was owed some kind of payment and as I understand it the church feared (rightly) that it led to a form of dualism. Christus victor has always been popular, but with many clear references to God’s holiness and the need for a perfect sacrifice for our atonement, the penal substitution view took center stage in the middle ages. There is also the “healing” view and what I believe the above member was talking about is more of a “moral government view.” DO NOT quote me on that, I kind of want to re-look it up, but if my fuzzy memory serves me, it is along the lines of people look on the sacrifice on the cross and see how much God loves us by the injustice of an innocent man dying. I think this may be only a half-truth or poorly stated but I want to say that is the gist of it. The church never leaned heavily towards this view because of the clear need for actual atonement, although some people favor it because of its less “legalistic” implications. No view captures the whole truth, because our atonement is is obviously more than capable of being true of all views at once. Most churches tend to have a mix of views. The church’s as I see it now tends to be a more “penal substitution and christus victor” view. If anybody disagrees or has something to add I could study up and we could start a new topic on this, I find it fascinating.

 

[FCEGM]

Sorry let me rephrase. I was kind of meaning to fix the above as soon as I wrote it. The early theories the church leaned towards were the ransom theories and the christus victor theories. The ransom theory was later done away with because it necessarily implied that the devil was owed some kind of payment and as I understand it the church feared (rightly) that it led to a form of dualism. Christus victor has always been popular, but with many clear references to God’s holiness and the need for a perfect sacrifice for our atonement, the penal substitution view took center stage in the middle ages. There is also the “healing” view and what I believe the above member was talking about is more of a “moral government view.” DO NOT quote me on that, I kind of want to re-look it up, but if my fuzzy memory serves me, it is along the lines of people look on the sacrifice on the cross and see how much God loves us by the injustice of an innocent man dying. I think this may be only a half-truth or poorly stated but I want to say that is the gist of it. The church never leaned heavily towards this view because of the clear need for actual atonement, although some people favor it because of its less “legalistic” implications. No view captures the whole truth, because our atonement is is obviously more than capable of being true of all views at once. Most churches tend to have a mix of views. The church’s as I see it now tends to be a more “penal substitution and christus victor” view. If anybody disagrees or has something to add I could study up and we could start a new topic on this, I find it fascinating.

Nathan, you might find these articles helpful:

catholic-legate.com/articles/cathatonement.html

catholic-legate.com/articles/atonement.html

Also, there was a previous discussion on “penal substition” here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2647158

and here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=137654

 

[mlchance]

So, consider this - cells from Jesus, cells from the Lord incarnate, LIVED in Mary. How could Hsi pure and divine nature live in an impure woman and remain pure? They couldn’t. To carry Jesus, HER body and soul had to be pure, too.

No, the Blessed Virgin did have have to be sinless. Jesus’ divine nature precludes the possibility of him sinning.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

As I understand it from several catholic church sources, the Virgin Mary did have to be sinless. That was the whole point behind the immaculate conception. Christ was still man, and would have inherited a fallen human nature from his mother.

Because Christ preemptively saved her though the holy spirit by filling her with grace at the moment of her conception. If he didn’t do this, that is implying he would have needed to do this to himself. Implying that Jesus would have needed a saviour is blasphemous, and this is why the early church fathers in the early days followed this line of reasoning, to combat the accusation that Jesus was a normal, sinful man.