I do realize that this is written for your Baptist friend, but in my experience, many of the baptists I know do not understand OSAS like Calvin. So if I did not think some of these questions may come up from your Baptist friend, or I would make a new thread. If you come back before my questions are answered, and think this is throwing off the answers you need, please just say so. I will be glad to start a new thread.
I find this a very interesting thing and was not aware that Catholic teaching did not say that God turned away from Christ because of the sins he bore for me, as in a substitute for me.
posted by mtr01
Now, the question of substitutionary atonement. This is a uniquely Protestant doctrine. It seems to me they took St. Anselm’s “theory” and went hog-wild with it. It basically suggests that our Lord bore all our sins with him on the cross in the sense that he was a substitute for our sinfulness; a scapegoat.
Yes, this is what I was taught while in fundamental churches (AoG, Nazarene, and Evangelical), minus the word scapegoat. Did not know it was St. Anselm’s theory. Do you know if this will be available to look at at New Advent?
As a result, all of our sins are “covered”, there is nothing else that we need to do (except accept Jesus as “our personal Lord and Savior”).
Also what was said. But in truth not what was practiced since we were taught that one must confess our sins if we “backslide”.
Of course we know that this Sacrifice did not “cover” or make total satisfaction for our sins, since after the Resurrection, our Lord told us how our sins are to be forgiven (Jn 20:22-23).
Yes, I see the Sacrament of Reconcilliation. I understand that my sins are not just covered. They will be cleansed and I will be made Holy not just covered in holiness.
But how does this mean that Jesus did not atone for my sins by bearing them on Himself? Why did God not turn away from Him on the cross?
If His death on the cross covered all our sins, there would be no need for them to be forgiven. There would also be no need for us to offer our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God (Rom 12:1) .
In the denomination I was in one needed to ask forgiveness of sins, one could “backslide” and need to “lay it at the foot of the cross” again. Holiness and making ourselves a living sacrifice was emphasized. And while I was taught incorrectly the sins were “covered”, it still does not answer why Christ did not bear them on Himself. A few of my baptist friends would use different words, but mean basically the same thing.
or to make “what is lacking” in our Lord’s Sacrifice (Col 1:24)
And this completely sets my back up. My fundamental roots are yelling "there is nothing lacking in the Lord’s Sacrifice." I read the verse but once again, those roots are yelling, “there is a different interpretation than what you are saying. I don’t know what it is, but you are wrong. There was, and is nothing lacking in the Lord’s Sacrifice.”
Note to all: Truly, my entire being is so shocked by that statement, if I were still in those circles, I probably would not hear anything that was said after you said something like this. May not want to address this with these words or right away.
Now however, I am just going to wait for the explanation.
Please help me to understand the Catholic interpretatin of why the Lord was not a substitute for my sins, past, present and future as long as I continue to lay them at the cross (repent). Why God did not turn away from Christ because He bore my sins and God could not stand to gaze upon Him.