Who or What Was Sacrificed for Our Sins?

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْم

After a (very) brief exchange between brother Vaqas and the missionary Ken Temple on the question of who or what was sacrificed when Jesus was allegedly crucified for our sins, it seems that not only Temple but other Christians are very uncomfortable with discussing this topic. After Temple failed to give an adequate answer to his question, brother Vaqas went on the offensive again. In the exchange below, we can see Temple’s evasive responses. He even asked brother Vaqas to clarify if his question was based on an “orthodox” Christian source! Shouldn’t Temple know the “orthodox” already? Temple’s evasiveness demonstrates how uncomfortable he is with the topic, although he claimed he just didn’t have time to talk about it. How convenient! It got to the point where brother Vaqas had to educate Temple, and Temple even congratulated him for discovering the “orthodox” view on what exactly was “sacrificed” (Spoiler alert: it was the “human” nature that was sacrificed but it was “supported” during the suffering by the “divine” nature). But towards the end of the conversation, brother Vaqas explained why this explanation creates a major contradiction vis a vis God’s justice (emphasis mine).

Vaqas Rehman January 11, 2020 • 9:18 pm

@Ken Temple

Hi Ken I’ve been doing some research on the topic and i stumbled upon a possible answer to my questions. Can you confirm or deny if it fits with you’re theology?

“what was sacrificed was the human nature. the human nature alone suffered and died. the human nature was supported by the divine nature so that it could bear the sins of the world”

Please reply when you have the time.

Ken Temple

Do you have an article or orthodox (meaning of “orthodox” = sound doctrine, not “eastern or Greek Orthodoxy) theology book that that is from?

Thank you Vaqas for being respectful and having good manners in your methods/ questions. (unlike Faiz/ QB and mr.heathcliff)

@Ken Temple

“Do you have an article or orthodox (meaning of “orthodox” = sound doctrine, not “eastern or Greek Orthodoxy) theology book that that is from?”

The quote is a paraphrase of several christian articles and videos I looked through. Of particular note the phraseology of something like “the human nature was supported by the divine nature so that it could bear the sins of the world” came up in a few different variations. Based on you’re current knowledge does such a statement agree or disagree with you’re theology?

“Thank you Vaqas for being respectful and having good manners in your methods/ questions. (unlike Faiz/ QB and mr.heathcliff)”

Awww, Kennywise is only respectful when others are respectful (eye for an eye), but his mangod commands him to “turn the other cheek”. Kennywise just flat-out refuses to obey his mangod! What a bad crosstian! LOL!

“Do you have an article or orthodox (meaning of “orthodox” = sound doctrine, not “eastern or Greek Orthodoxy) theology book that that is from?”

What difference does that make, Kennywise? What is the “orthodox” position, you dingbat? That’s what Vaqas has been asking all this time.

@Ken Temple

“Do you have an article or orthodox (meaning of “orthodox” = sound doctrine, not “eastern or Greek Orthodoxy) theology book that that is from?”

The quote is a paraphrase of several christian articles and videos I looked through. Of particular note the phraseology of something like “the human nature was supported by the divine nature so that it could bear the sins of the world” came up in a few different variations. Based on you’re current knowledge does such a statement agree or disagree with you’re theology?

Vaqas,
But you did not give any links to any references, etc.
It needs to be from kind of good Theological textbook, or book, from an orthodox Protestant viewpoint. I have not had time to study the issue deeper than what I already have put into it.

Kennywise is clearly struggling with this question. He’s stalling…

@Ken Temple

“It needs to be from kind of good Theological textbook, or book, from an orthodox Protestant viewpoint. I have not had time to study the issue deeper than what I already have put into it.”

I see. do you have any book recommendations that could answer my questions?

I was referring to your summary and quotes – wanting you to supply the references of where you got that from – with your quotes, or summary, etc.

Otherwise I have not had time to research your specific question / issue.

@Ken Temple

This is one and seems the most sophisticated.
https://www.rbap.net/the-doctrine-of-the-incarnation-and-sufferings-of-the-son-of-god-and-the-doctrine-of-divine-impassibility/

the relevant quote from it is

“The human nature was “united to the [omniscient] divine [nature], in the person of the Son” (2LCF 8.3a). This means, though our Lord suffered according to his human nature (and only according to his human nature), the human nature remained united to the divine nature and was supported and sustained throughout the sufferings, for this is what God does in relation to that which has been made, which is but the truth of divine providence. The incarnate Son, according to his divine nature, upheld the incarnate Son, according to his human nature (Col. 1:17). The work of mediation is the work of both the human and divine natures of the Son. In fact, the Son’s work of mediation, according to his divine nature, actually predates the incarnation itself (cf. 1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 1:10-11) and in that sense could only be the work of the divine nature.”

 

To further clarify my question this time ,is the notion that the divine nature supported/sustained the human nature in order that the human nature might bear the sins of the world Orthodox christian theology?

Thank you! I think that is an acceptable source from an orthodox Protestant perspective. Sorry I don’t have time for more discussion on this now, but that was very good. there’s the answer for now. Maybe later, Inshall’Allah انشاء الله , I hopefully would be able to interact more.

Good job, Vaqas. And thanks for being respectful and having proper manners. ادب و احسن

Lol, good job indeed brother Vaqas for educating Kennywise about his own discombobulated theology. 🤣

@Ken Temple

” Sorry I don’t have time for more discussion on this now, but that was very good. there’s the answer for now. Maybe later, Inshall’Allah انشاء الله , I hopefully would be able to interact more.”

I see well that’s disappointing. I was looking forward to discuss the ramifications and contradictions that answer posed for christian theology… In any event let me know when you’re ready to continue the discussion on this topic.

Brother Vaqas, even though Kennywise is clearly afraid to engage with you on this topic, that doesn’t mean you should let it go. Impart your wisdom so we can all learn, inshaAllah. At this rate, if you keep at it, you will put us all out of a job. There will be nothing left to refute about Christianity!

yes, maybe u can do little write up and post on qb blogs

Vaqas Rehman

January 14, 2020 • 5:35 pm

My brothers you give me too much credit! I’d be nothing without you guys and of course without Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala assistance.

One of the problems with this notion of divine sustaining the human nature was already shown by mr.heathcliff on QB’s blog. which is that it makes a mockery of God’s justice. i’ll quote the relevant portion here-

“An analogy will clarify this. Suppose the law requires someone to carry a burden on his own shoulders as punishment for some infraction of the law. If the person indeed has the burden placed on his shoulders but at the same time receives help from another person who comes along and lends assistance, either by bearing some of the weight or by offering support in any way, then satisfaction is not made to the law. Likewise, if the human nature indeed suffered but was at the same time continually sustained by the divine nature so that it could bear the punishment, then satisfaction was not made to the divine law, which determined the penalties to be endured by the human nature. Nor will satisfaction have genuinely been made to the law if the one who should bear the burden is helped extraordinarily by consuming some food or drink that produces superhuman strength, or by any other source introduced from without.”

The big question is this. If God is willing to manipulate his wrath by sustaining the human nature to endure the sins, why not simply do the same for the rest of us?! Sustain our human natures so that we may bear the pain our own sins. Theres more i could write but i’m feeling a little weak at the moment so i’ll wait to collect my thoughts on a later date.

 

 

 

 

6 thoughts on “Who or What Was Sacrificed for Our Sins?

      1. mr.heathcliff

        1 In the year of King Uzziah’s death I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple.
        2 Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.
        3 And one called out to another and said, “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory.”
        4 And the foundations of the thresholds trembled at the voice of him who called out, while the temple was filling with smoke.
        5 Then I said, “Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.”
        6 Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a burning coal in his hand, which he had taken from the altar with tongs. 7 He touched my mouth with it and said, “Behold, this has touched your lips; and your iniquity is taken away and your sin is forgiven.” (Isa. 6:1-7 NAU)

        brothers, here is an example where a blood sacrifice was not required.

        Do burns bleed?

        Liked by 2 people

      2. mr.heathcliff

        brother vaqas, if we think about it , hypostatic union is nonsense

        if a human became a fish, then the fish MIND has COLLAPSED the human mind. if a fish became a human, then the human mind COLLAPSES the fish mind. based on this simple analysis, u cant have two separate natures when one of them(jesus’ person IS fully essence) is COLLAPSED by h

        Liked by 1 person

  1. mr.heathcliff

    think about it like this, a “human being ” is on a plane and at the same time existing as a monkey in a zoo

    if the human on the plane is having MONKEY experiences, how is it that the monkiness has not collapsed his human mind?

    other than that the human HAS ABSOLUTELY no experience of the monkey in the zoo, which would mean two persons.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s