Each Shall die for his own sin

Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin. -Deuteronomy 24:16

The idea that Christ died as if He commited our sin violates the Biblical teaching that each man be put to death for his OWN sins.  This verse, however, seems to only apply to adults, since young children in the Bible are put to death, or killed, because of their parents sins, as in the case of David's son, or the nations God commanded the Israelites to destroys.  Regardless, Christ could not have been put to death for the sins of others (at least justly!). Rather, Christ willingly laid down His own life for the sake of others, not that He should die as their substitute, but that by His righteous death, God would show mercy to mankind, thus allowing man forgiveness on the condition they repent of their sins.  After all, Christ did make several warning statements that certain sins would cause the soul to go to Hell forever, as we see in Matthew 5 with sexual sins, Matthew 6 with withholding forgiving your brother's sins and so on.

On another point, Deuteronomy 24:16 is a verse anti/counter-Missionary Jews use against Christians.  Their claim is legitimate, but only against baptistic and Calvinistic types of Christians that espouse this particular view of the atonement that says "Christ died in our place" or "He took the wrath of God in our place" and so on.  Rather, the Biblical Christ was a propitiation for the sins of the world, meaning His death provided MERCY for mankind. 

I have already written before that the idea of a penal substitution when logically followed out is a denial of Trinitarianism, or can be an affirmation of a sort of Arianism (since God cannot be forsaken by God), or some form of theology where Christ as a man and Christ as God are divorced (undoing the incarnation).

Calvinists try to prove a penaly substitution with verses like 2 Corinthians 5:21, or Isaiah 53 and so on.  When the fact is 2 Corinthians 5:21 by saying Christ "became sin for us" is an expression St Paul was using for a sin offering, and Isaiah 53 doesn't mean God treated Christ as if He had our sins, in fact Matthew 8:17 interprets this part of Isaiah as Jesus healing the sick and casting out demons:

When it was evening, they brought him many who were possessed by demons, and he drove out the spirits by a word and cured all the sick, to fulfill what had been said by Isaiah the prophet: “He took away our infirmities and bore our diseases.”--Matthew 8:16-17

Baptism's Role

The Catholic Church since ancient times taught the doctrine that baptism is the sacrament that results in a believer's regeneration (being born again). Many Protestants reject the historical and Biblical doctrine that Baptism regenerates a believer in Christ and saves them. Some Protestants called hyper-dispensationalists even deny that using water in baptism is for today! Many Protestants treat baptism as a purely symbolic ritual. Ironically, they are the same people that reject calling Christianity a 'religion' because they believe Christianity is not a religion of rituals, despite the fact baptism and Communion are rituals Christ instituted.

There are a few Protestants groups that still recognize the value of baptism and hold that it does in fact regenerate, they include, but are not necessarily limited to: Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists and some Pentecostals.

Before responding to the Protestants that believe baptism does not save, I will post several Scriptures showing the importance and value of baptism.

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.--Mark 16:16

This verse clearly links baptism with the word "saved." However, in my experience Protestants will have 2 possible rebuttals to this: 1)the emphasis of Mark 16:16 is "belief," 2)this section is not part of the Bible.

To answer the first claim, to say the emphasis is 'belief' is just trying to ignore the fact baptism is even mentioned. This is more of a statement rather than a rebuttal. The fact is the sentence still reads "believers and is baptized will be saved." It does nothing to address the fact baptism is mentioned in connection to salvation.

The second claim is not very common since most Protestants still trust the KJV which includes this part of Mark 16. Once a Pentecostal minister told me this, then I later caught him quoting this same debated section of Scripture to lend support for speaking in tongues ie "speaking in new tongues" (Mark 16:!7). Even if, theoretically, this passage were an addition to Scripture, we do not rely solely on this passage to teach the importance of Baptism.

Now another verse that shows the role of baptism in salvation:

"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."-Acts 2:38

Peter here is making repentance and baptism necessary for the forgiveness of sins. This verse is also very straightforward in stating baptism's necessity for the forgiveness of sins. In my experience there have been a few rebuttals to this. One is the ridiculous claim that is saying sins are "remitted" in the sense of a disease, and they may come back somehow. Another rebuttal is that the word eis means they have forgiveness because they repented and because they have forgiveness they can be baptized. The third claim is a more modern and extreme claim by hyperdispensationalists who assert that this was only for that time, and now we have a "dry baptism," since it was intended for Jews.

In response to the first claim, the word remission is found in some older bibles like the KJV and DRB, however, even then the word remission typically means forgiveness, in the Greek the word remission is also used in Mark 3:29 for the forgiveness of the eternal sin, for more on this see the question and answer page on question Q7.

In response to the second claim, the word eis typically means "into" or "for." Their repentance and baptism causes their sins to be forgiven. The word is used about 1865 times in the New Testament, almost all the occurrences means "into" or "for."

In response to the third claim, Dispensationalism is false because Paul himself baptized people with water in Acts 19, 1 Corinthians 1, and Gentiles who were not proselytes to Judaism were explicitly baptized with water in Acts 10 by St Peter's order. There is no reason to believe they stopped or intended to cease water baptism. Also, the Christian baptism is not the same baptism as St John the Baptist since his followers had to be rebaptized with a Christian baptism in Acts 19.

John 20:22-23, Rebuttal to the Protestant interpretation

Perhaps, the clearest passage showing the Apostles were given the power to forgive sins in the Name of Christ, the origin of the ability of the priests of the Church to forgive sins in the Sacrament of Reconciliation (confession) is found in the passages in St John's Gospel 20:21-23

(Jesus) said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."--John 20:21-23

Many will object and assert that here the only thing Jesus is doing here is telling the Apostles that they can now forgive their brother when their brother sins against them.

This reading, however, is highly problematic. Their interpretation requires them to add two words into the verse to make it sins done against the Apostles. Let's see how their interpretation would read in they added the words to the text:

"If you forgive the sins done against you of any their sins done against you have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins done against you of any, they have been retained." (Protestant understanding of John 20:23)

The thing about this is that, if Christ wanted to say this He would have said this! Whenever the Bible speaks about sins done against God it simply says "sins against the LORD" or some variation of it, or simply says "sins" or some variation of sin like "trespass," "offend," etc. Now when they Bible says a person was harmed by another person it says someone "sinned against them", it always does so, so as to not confuse it with sinning against God. Here are a few examples:

But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.--Matthew 18:15

Then came Peter unto him and said: Lord, how often shall my brother offend against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?-Matthew 18:22

And Ruben one of them, said: Did not I say to you: Do not sin against the boy: and you would not hear me? Behold his blood is required.--Genesis 42:22

Furthermore, why would Jesus have to breathe on them to have the ability to forgive the sins of their offenders? They were already said to have this ability in the Lord's Prayer, and Jesus said shortly after:

"If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions."--Matthew 6:14-15

It would seem if we were to follow the thought process no one had their sins forgiven since they did not have the Holy Spirit breathed on them.