"Taking on sin"

[byHisGrace]

In a discussion I had with a recent convert, he told me he believed that because we are to follow and imitate Christ, and, “to become God”(from the Catechism), that we are to accept our sufferings and offer ourselves as did Christ, by “taking on sin” as did Christ. He meant that to mean that by accepting our suffering we were imitating Christ by “taking on the sin of the world”, and that we are to bear our suffering for the sins of others as did Christ.

While I fully agree we are to both imitate Christ and to unite our suffering with His, I told him it was Christ that took on sin the sins of all of us, not us.
He also likes to talk about “becoming God”, quoting the Catechism as his reference.

Can someone help me straighten him (and me) out here?

Thanks!

 

[Verita]

That sounds to me like a very Protestant view of the atonement. At least, when I was Protestant that was exactly what I was taught and believed, that Jesus “took on the sins of the world”. It would also have been said in my old Protestant circles that Jesus became guilty of the sins of the world so that he could pay the price for them.

I no longer believe this. Jesus’ sacrifice was the sacrifice of the perfect, unblemished pascal lamb. Jesus was a pure sacrifice, and that was why he was able to atone for our sins.

Also, if you think about it, Jesus was fully God. Can God really take on sin? Of course not. God is the opposite of sin.

 

[JPrejean]

Sounds pretty Scriptural to me:

Col. 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church

Rom. 6:3-5 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

Gal. 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

I think your friend is just speaking of really becoming a part of Christ’s sacrifice. The Protestant doctrine of imputation is that Christ’s work “does it all” and we possess His righteousness only by imputation. The Catholic doctrine means we actually attain likeness to Christ, so that even though Christ is the one perfect sacrifice, we participate in this sacrifice with him. Thus, Protestantism is what draws this sharp distinction between us and Christ, so that we cannot be really united to Him in His sacrifice, and His righteousness can only be imputed to us.

Based on that reasoning, I don’t think there is anything wrong in saying that, through our imitation and conformity to Christ, we really become united to His sacrifice, His Crucifixion, His suffering for our sake. Indeed, I think we must affirm against the Protestants, who say that we cannot be united to Christ in this way, that Christ’s righteousness is infused so that we really are united to Him.

 

[Trelow]

Sounds like he’s got it about right.

 

[RyanL]

… He also likes to talk about “becoming God”, quoting the Catechism as his reference.

Can someone help me straighten him (and me) out here?

Depending on the usage, he may either be right or wrong on this point. The concept is known in Eastern Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) as “theosis” and in western Catholicism as “divinization” (or sometimes “deification”). Most of us Latin Rite-ers like to talk about “sharing/partaking in the inner life of the Trinity” more than “divinization”, but the concept is definitely a Catholic one as properly understood.

Some Methodists may also use the term ‘theosis’, although the understanding is much different than ours; theirs (I believe) refers to the ability of men in their earthly life to become entirely sinless, or rather completely sanctified. We do not teach this…
Council of Vienna:

We have therefore heard with great displeasure that an abominable sect of wicked men, commonly called Beghards, and of faithless women, commonly called Beguines, has sprung up in the realm of Germany. This sect, planted by the sower of evil deeds, holds and asserts in its sacrilegious and perverse doctrine the following errors.

1. First, that a person in this present life can acquire a degree of perfection which renders him utterly impeccable and unable to make further progress in grace. For, as they say, if someone could always make further progress, he could become more perfect than Christ

Source, para 28. This was the 15th Ecumenical Council.

Finally, we certainly don’t teach the LDS idea of theosis, which is that we become gods independent of God, nor do we teach some sort of pantheistic notion that we will all dissolve into God. We will always be who we are, for better or worse, but will become perfected in and through God. Like salt enhances the flavor of whatever food on which you put it, God’s grace will enhance our true nature. We will be more us than we are now, and will become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4).

If you would like to learn more about theosis, you should probably start a topic in the Eastern Christianity forum (as their theology on this matter, from my humble and very amateur-ish opinion, is more developed than ours).

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[byHisGrace]

I think the part I’m struggling with is his comment that since we must become Christ-like, then, like Christ, we must “take on” sin. It implies that Christ’s sacrifice wasn’t sufficient. We certainly have to deal with our own sin, and we certainly have to deal with the effects of sin in the world, but this sounds like to be Christian we are somehow called to bear the sins of others or at least suffer for them.

Christ died for all of our sins, past, present, and future, right?

Thanks.

 

[Trelow]

The scripture is in post #3.

Jesus said, Where ever I am, there too my servant will be.

Where do we find Jesus?
Hung upon the tree, taking up the curse of the world.

The servant is no greater than the master.

 

[RyanL]

I think the part I’m struggling with is his comment that since we must become Christ-like, then, like Christ, we must “take on” sin. It implies that Christ’s sacrifice wasn’t sufficient. We certainly have to deal with our own sin, and we certainly have to deal with the effects of sin in the world, but this sounds like to be Christian we are somehow called to bear the sins of others or at least suffer for them.

Rosalind Moss has an excellent analogy she likes to use where she talks about a baker baking a cake. She has the eggs, the flour, the bowl, etc., everything that you need to bake a cake. She’s entirely sufficient to bake the cake and needs nothing. Her daughter then comes to her and asks, “Mommy, can I help?”

What does love do?

Love says, “Sure, hon, of course you can help.” Love is not threatened by sharing.
St. Paul:

Col 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church…

Is Christ’s sacrifice sufficient? Of course. Does Christ need our help? Of course not. Does He allow us to help? That’s what love does.

But do not think that it is us doing Christ’s work “by our own bootstraps”, so to speak. We must be quick to acknowledge, as St. Paul did in Gal 2:20, “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me.” Likewise, it is no longer I who work, but Christ workes in me.

To whatever degree our works are meritorious in God’s sight, they are only meritorious to the extent that they are the works of Christ in us. Further, our works are only meritorious in a temporal sense - Christ took care of the eternal consequences of sin at Calvary. There is nothing for us to add, and it is rightly called “finished”. To continue the analogy, *that *cake is baked.

I think you might profit from a quick study on indulgences, here and here. If you can get indulgences to make sense, Col 1:24 should be a breeze. If you can’t understand indulgences, you’ll never understand Col 1:24 (IMHO).

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

What was redemtive suffering again?