Hi Thomas,

I have never heard of the heresy of which you speak (and that is what it is). You are of course entirely correct. I cannot even imagine that this would be considered orthodox by the standards of Protestants who uphold the concept.

It is very strange that they would claim that Jesus had to be only a man to take on the sins of the world; the common Protestant view is that Jesus had to be God in order to do this, since only God was the perfect enough sacrifice.

Perhaps my colleagues will have some input to this, but all I see is a bizarre heresy I have never heard of that contradicts even orthodox Protestantism. I am willing to bet that this is not the official Presbyterian position but an error someone picked up at some point.

Thanks for writing,

Eric Ewanco

Hi Tom,

I concur totally with my colleague Eric on this issue.

You said:
During our discussion, I learned that the Presbyterian participants believe that Christ, when on the Cross, did not only make amends for all the sins of mankind, but that He actually took on the weight of all those sins as His Own, and since sin (or sinners) cannot be in the presence of God, that during His time on the Cross, Christ temporarily ceased to be [God/man], and had to be only man in order to take on the sins of mankind as His Own. This is supposedly substantiated by Christ's statement when nearing (human) death, he said:

"Father, why has thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46)

I sense what your Protestant friends are trying to do, with good hearts, is logically reconcile the Mystery of Our Lord being both 100% True God and 100% True Man at the same time.

No one can do this, as it is a Mystery of Faith.

Logically trying to resolve this puts you into heresy. As Catholic Christians on earth we can understand most of the faith with our reason, but the other parts we will have to wait until the next life :) The Catechism does tell us in CCC 602 to 605:

"For our sake God made him to be sin"

602 Consequently, St. Peter can formulate the apostolic faith in the divine plan of salvation in this way: "You were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers. . . with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the end of the times for your sake." (1 Peter 1:18-20) Man's sins, following on original sin, are punishable by death. (cf. Romans 6:23; 1 Corinthians 15:56) By sending his own Son in the form of a slave, in the form of a fallen humanity, on account of sin, God "made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Corinthians 5:21; cf. Philippians 2:7; Romans 8:3)

603 Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned. (cf. John 8:46) But in the redeeming love that always united him to the Father, he assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin, to the point that he could say in our name from the cross: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34; Psalm 22:2; cf. John 8:29) Having thus established him in solidarity with us sinners, God "did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all", so that we might be "reconciled to God by the death of his Son". (Romans 8:32; 5:10)

God takes the initiative of universal redeeming love

604 By giving up his own Son for our sins, God manifests that his plan for us is one of benevolent love, prior to any merit on our part: "In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins." (1 John 4:10; 4:19) God "shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)

605 At the end of the parable of the lost sheep Jesus recalled that God's love excludes no one: "So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish." (Matthew 18:14) He affirms that he came "to give his life as a ransom for many"; this last term is not restrictive, but contrasts the whole of humanity with the unique person of the redeemer who hands himself over to save us. (Matthew 20:28; cf. Romans 5:18-19) The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception: "There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer." (Council of Quiercy (853): DS 624; cf. 2 Corinthians 5:15; 1 John 2:2)

Side note: Remember, that when you go to a Protestant Bible Study, you are implying there is something missing in your Faith, that you are hoping a Protestant Bible Study has. My preference would be to see you start or join a Catholic Bible Study. Just my opinion.

Mike

Hi Tom,

You said:
Thank you for offering your opinion on this issue, however, I believe the crux of the issue for them centers on the highlighted portion of my statement:

Christ, when on the Cross, did not only make amends for all the sins of mankind, but that He actually took on the weight of all those sins as His Own, and since sin (or sinners) cannot be in the presence of God, that during His time on the Cross, Christ temporarily ceased to be [God/man], and had to be only man in order to take on the sins of mankind as His Own.

The text in bold is important to frame what I understood them to be saying, but I believe the issue deals specifically with their perspective that Christ took the sins of the world upon Himself on the Cross, as if they were His Own sins, and since God cannot be in the presence of sin, the only way they can reconcile the conflict created by Christ's dual nature (being God and man) is to conclude that, to do this, He must have shed the God portion of his dual nature for that short time on the Cross.

I simply think they are reading too much into the verses of Scripture that say that Jesus took upon Himself the sins of the world and whichever ones they use to establish that Jesus took on the weight of all our sins as His Own. It is not necessary to understand this in such a way that requires that you embrace a totally unacceptable and utterly absurd notion, that Jesus ceased to be God. This is far worse than believing that God made the sins of the world His Own.

• As you point out, how can God cease to be God and still be at any time God?

I think the way I would approach this is, first of all, to challenge them to prove from the Scriptures that Jesus at any time ceased to be God.

They of course will be unable to prove this. The conclusion is that this belief is not based on Scripture but is rather an inference someone came up with in order to solve a quandary they were faced with.

Consequently, we have to examine the assumptions that generated the quandary. In particular, the assumption they are making is that it is impossible for Jesus both to take on the sins of the world and be God.

A good discussion would be to find out what they mean by make our sins His Own.

• What Scriptures do they base this on?
• How do they understand it?, and
  
  
• if their understanding that relates to this inference is absolutely totally incontrovertible, or
• whether there is another valid understanding of it that doesn't require such an absurd conclusion.

A few more thoughts. This is predicated on the idea that God cannot be in the presence of sin. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that sin cannot be in the presence of God, and to suggest that God, who cannot change, does not shrink as if in terror from sin, as Victorian ladies shrank from mud. In fact, God obliterates sin.

In other words, to say that God cannot be in the presence of sin is not to say that there is a repellent force that drives God away from sin, but to say that as God cannot be in the presence of sin, so darkness cannot be in the presence of light. Jesus is compared to light in the darkness, and so his very presence not only drives away sin but causes it to cease to exist.

Furthermore, it is beyond me how a mere man can bear the weight of all the sins in the world.

• How, exactly, would he do so, even if he were perfect?
• What, exactly, are the mechanics of this — how does the sin get transferred to Jesus, meaning exactly in what sense does He bear it?

If they have any shred of Christian humility, they will admit that they do not know, in which case, I would suggest that if they do not know that, they should not be so confident that their interpretation of this difficult and obscure point is absolutely correct.

God cannot be in the presence of sin in the same way that light cannot be in the presence of darkness. It does not mean that sins are like an oppositely charged particle that would be repelled from Jesus if He were God, nor does it mean that sins are like cooties that Jesus would flee from if they got too close. If the most heinous, most ghastly sin in the world entered the presence of God, it would immediately be consumed with divine uncreated fire, and God would say to the angels,

Did you hear something? It sounded like a twig snapping.

Eric

Hi Tom,

I wanted to make a few comment on your wiliness to attend a Protestant Bible Study.

Protestant Bible Studies may:

• challenge you more
• make you read and study the Scriptures more and
• give you more zeal for the faith

but there is only one Church that can feed any Christian and that is the Catholic Church with the Eucharist. When a Catholic receives the Blessed Sacrament in a state of grace, they not only believe they are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, but also making a public statement, that they are in a Common Union with the teachings of the Church. When you attend a non-Catholic Bible study, you are saying you aren't in a Common Union with the Church.

The number of implicit teachings you believe within a Protestant Bible Study is far less then the number of teachings you would find in a Catholic Bible Study group and the implication within Protestant Bible studies is, if the group is reading a Scripture that deals with a Catholic teaching or doctrine e.g. (Matthew 16:13-20, John 6:51-70, 1 Timothy 3:15, or John 20:19-23), the Catholic interpretation of that verse is probably incorrect. Many don't believe in Oral Tradition though the Scriptures profusely support this Catholic Teaching.

I would personally say the Rosary for your wife on a daily basis and, once you show her the scriptural basis for it, pray the Rosary with her on a daily basis. The Rosary is something all Christian couples should be able to do together.

• What could be wrong with meditating on the Life of Jesus and Mary, his Mother while saying some prayers?

Also, invite her to Mass once in a while.

I used to run a free Rosary for Protestants program that sent Rosaries to seeking Protestants and non-Christians but no longer have the financial or operational means to do this anymore. Nevertheless, if you wish get your hands on a free Rosary just Google for one.

It's a great devotion because whether you are a Catholic Christian, Protestant Christian, or non-Christian, we are meditating on the lives of both Jesus, Our Lord, and Mary, His Mother and it has many blessings attached to praying it.

Mike