The Bible says that Jesus was fully God and fully man. I believe the Bible. We know from the scripture that Jesus lived a perfect life and that he never sinned; not even so much as a wrong thought. So, could he have sinned? Was he capable of sin?
|
The Bible says that Jesus was fully God and fully man. I believe the Bible. We know from the scripture that Jesus lived a perfect life and that he never sinned; not even so much as a wrong thought. So, could he have sinned? Was he capable of sin?
Well All men are capable of sin. Was Jesus a man?
Or is sin something we put a label on something that we think is not right?
Jesus got angry, he got mad, he threw people out of the temple. Being angry is that a sin?
Sin can be defined as specific acts or even thoughts. So it all depends on what people think real sin is.
It is all subjective.
hey Tess - hmmm... this is one of those age-old questions that if it were a simple one to answer, would not require asking ;)
Was he capable of sinning? Capable can suggest an inclination or disposition towards something... in this case sin. Given what we know (after the fact), Jesus was not capable of sin because in every circumstance of life where his commitment to God was tested, he never failed. So answering that question (was he capable of sinning?) is easy to do now that we know all of the circumstances and acts of Jesus after they occurred.
But maybe another question we could raise is was it possible for Jesus to sin? I think that since the opportunities to sin for Jesus were presented through the trials of Satan, the "possibility" for Jesus to sin must have been a reality... if not, why would the temptations of Satan to Christ have even occurred? I think it was possible for Jesus to sin but if he had sinned, the rest of God's story would not be what it is... he would have told a different story.
Another question may be raised at this point. If Jesus were not capable of sin and yet the possibility of Jesus sinning were a reality, what was the point of the trials Jesus faced? Hebrews makes the case that in order for Jesus to be a qualified high priest, he needed to be able to empathize with us in our struggles against sin. He can be a more effective High Priest because he has come face to face with temptation, felt the stings of it (consider how Jesus was hungry and weak while Satan came to tempt him), and yet was able to still do the right thing and obey God.
And I might add that the high priestly quality of Jesus is what sets him apart from all other "Gods." No other religion can boast of a God who was so thoroughly intimate with the human experience that he became human, faced the temptations of sin, knew sorrow and pain, and in the end chose to be merciful to those who killed him.
Jake,
I know it is a tough question. Hmmmm? So you think it was possible. Interesting... I don't believe it was possible at all.
As our High Priest he could relate to what we go through because he had the physical needs of a human being. He is God he couldn't have sinned. But I'm looking to back that up with some scripture. Anyone agree with me? Can anyone think of a scripture to back it up?
Joe,
I totally disagree with you. He was God in the flesh and he had righteous anger because he was Holy and Perfect. If Jesus even had one bad thought he couldn't have paid for my sins... he was completely without sin and I just don't believe he could have sinned.
The definition of sin from what I read according to the Bible is anything God has said Not to do and we do it... or anything God has said TO do and we don't do it. I don't see it as being subjective at all.
I've been known to be wrong though... ( very rare) ha! :0
Tess - I don't think anything is at stake in believing that it was possible for Jesus to sin. Believing it was possible is not akin to believing that Jesus was somehow sinful.
One argument for the possibility that Jesus could sin is the fact that he is actually human. Sometimes when we say that Jesus is fully God and fully man, it's as if what we are really saying is that Jesus is fully God in a human suit (just skin). He has all of the look and feel of a human but he's really not. Well, if that were true, the real significance of Christ's temptations fade into insignificance. The cards would have been so stacked in Christ's favor during those temptations that the temptations would have just been a silly formality. Jesus could have pulled back his human suit and said to Satan "you're no match for me, silly Devil." Jesus was no fake human. The temptations were real and a significant event for him. As Richard D. Phillips put it "The issue is this – if Christ was not able to sin then he was not really human as we are. In this case, Jesus does not really know what it is to be in our situation, and his perfect obedience before the Father was not a real and meritorious achievement."
I am elated at the fact that Jesus in his divinity was able to withstand sin and remain obedient to God because my salvation hinges upon it. Ultimately, I believe that Jesus would not have sinned because he possessed the character and divinity of God. "Even if we are going to affirm that Christ was able to sin because of his fully human nature, we must add that even in this human nature, and certainly in his divine nature, Jesus had no inner disposition to sin. Jesus had no motivation to sin, and therefore he did not sin; in this sense he could not sin. If the same were true of us we also would not sin; the reason we sin, after all, is that we are motivated to sin." (Phillips).
Yes He could have sinned, but He didn't. He was the perfect Adam.
Jake,
I agree with you to a point. I'm just thinking that there was nothing in Him that could respond to sin. Even a wrong thought! I mean,how does anyone get through life without a wrong thought?. He didn't have a" flesh" or the "old nature". Now I KNOW that Adam didn't at first either. BUT... Adam was 1. created and 2. created to be innocent... Not fully God and fully man. The Lord Jesus Christ is, was and always will be HOLY. I don't think he could have.
I look at it this way, when we are formed to his image and get the mind of Christ and a perfected body without spot or blimish in heaven, will we be able to sin? The thought is crazy. If I can sin in heaven then trust me Jake, I will. ( lol, I know me)
Or are you saying that he could have sinned before the resurrection? I'm curious as to your thoughts? I'm not trying to argue. I just got into a long discussion with someone and I really want some input.
That was the whole point -- that He COULD sin, but He didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
Adam didn't have any wrong thoughts for who knows how long. One day he did. He gave in to temptation, was convinced that the fruit of that tree would make him like God. For some reason, that day that idea sounded awfully cool. So he took a bite.
Jesus never was tempted enough to give in, even when Satan offered Him the world. Jesus was created as Adam had been, with the capacity to sin. That's why Adam is called the Old Adam and Jesus is the New Adam -- one gave in and the other didn't. Both started with the same potential. You, however, did not, so you can't equate Jesus' thoughts and actions to your own.
WG,
It is possible that I am wrong... but I don't think he could have. Interesting though.
Yup, this time you are wrong. Jesus' being human and able to sin and yet not sinning is the entire point of His story here on earth and the thing that makes His sacrifice on the cross so important for us! Otherwise, big deal! So our God died for us. Bet it was a walk in the park for Him then.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
No... Jesus did not sin.
The question on the table is, could He have sinned? ClassyT says no; most of the rest of us say yes. But he didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitkat22
I don't know. Honestly, I don't. I think he had a free will just as Adam did.. but he was without blemish. We know he was tempted by Satan. I think he could have said yes if he had wanted, but he was doing his Fathers will. He had to be strong.
Precisely!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitkat22
Tee hee. Now WG, you know I'm not giving up that easy. Back up your thoughts with scripture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I'm thankful he was so strong. Strong enough not to call heavens angels to take him from the cross.. He loved us that much. Love is what made him strong.
Tess - I absolutely understand what you are saying. It may be that what it is you are taking issue with is that spot that's a little difficult to get at with great clarity. It's that tension between Christ's divinity and his humanity that is really in view here. What is it about Christ's humanity that made the temptations significant, not his divinity?Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
You're question about the resurrection is interesting... I'll have to consider that a little more and come back to it but I was not suggesting a difference between pre and post resurrection.
It's late so I'm done for the night... I'll pick this up again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitkat22
TO ALL...
It is a hard question. In fact, I don't even know where the church I attend stands on this one. I myself do NOT see my savior as able to sin. He, in MY eyes, is better than any "superhero" because he had no kryptonite. He COULDN'T make a mistake. Remember he is fully God and fully man. God who knows all and spoke the world into existence, AND fully man,without the sin problem. It TOOK God to redeem this sinful creation. I think it is a beautiful thing... I don't see it as a walk in the park for Him... I also don't see him STRUGGLE for any kind of control over sin. But at the same time, I don't want to disgard or diminish the fact that He was tempted. When the word tempted is used... does it mean he wanted to but he fought the urge? Someone tempted me tonight with chocolate. I like chocolate but I didn't need the calories . I COULD have eaten it, it looked good but I had NO real desire and I don't like how I feel after I eat sweets. Do we have to have a desire in order to be tempted?
Hey! I think I got to the root issue!! Did Jesus ever have the desire to do His own will? See? I don't think he ever did.
The entire point that we are saved is that it took a God who was fully HUMAN and subject to temptation (lots of Bible verses to support that) to do it, one who could withstand the temptation that Adam couldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
If there's no desire, then there's no temptation. I have no use for and never want to own an SUV, and even Oprah couldn't tempt me with one. I have no desire, and there's no temptation. Thus, there's no sin.
Jesus was tempted. Think of the Garden. He wanted to walk away, was tempted to walk away, could have walked away, but he withstood the temptation.
WG,
OK! That is excellent advice, thank you.. I shall go read that again with fresh eyes and ears.
It's a difficult question, no doubt. I really don't think there's any difference between the question as stated in the thread title and the question "was Jesus capable of sin, or was it possible for him to sin?" Any way we slice it, we're going to bump into either his humanity or his divinity.
If we say "no, it wasn't possible" we bump into the question of his humanity; if he was fully human, then the frailty that leads to the possibility of committing a sin is part that humanity. But if we say "yes, it was possible" then we bump into the question of his divinity; if "sin" is defined as violating something related to the commands or nature of God, how could God the Son violate himself? So either way we go, we wind up with a conundrum.
Perhaps I'm a little guilty of creating God in my own image, but I do think it was possible. I believe the temptation in the wilderness was real; he was tempted to take the easy way out and gain the world without having to go to the cross. He chose to reject that temptation and "stay the course." I believe his fury in the temple courtyard was real, and he was tempted to go more than a little postal on the greed-mongers there. He chose to eject them forcefully but not give in to hatred in the process. I believe his agony in the garden was real, and he was tempted to back out of what he knew was coming. He chose to suck it up and go ahead with the plan even though he knew what it was going to cost him.
It's embarrassing to admit, but I really think the most profound depiction of his struggle in the garden is the song that Jesus sings in the otherwise-ridiculous-mess Jesus Christ Superstar. "I only want to say, if there is a way, take this cup away from me, for I don't want to taste its poison, feel it burn me, I have changed, I'm not as sure as when we started. Then I was inspired, now I'm sad and tired, listen, surely I've exceed expectations, tried for three years, seems like thirty, could you ask as much from any other man? But if I die, see the saga through and do the things you ask of me...God, thy will is hard, but you hold every card, I will drink your cup of poison, nail me to your cross and break me, bleed me, beat me, kill me, take me now, before I change my mind."
I really hate having to cite that quasi-blasphemous piece of junk, but in this case I think they hit the nail squarely on the head. Which just proves that accidents do happen :D
Dave,
Wow. NO one agrees with me.
Well I think all of the things you mentioned were real too. I think Satan tempted the Lord but I don't think he had the desire to respond to it. The Bible never implies he even thought about it. I always felt that the main reason that was put in the scripture was for an example. That is how WE needed to handle temptation plus to show us that Satan didn't really understand everything either.
Jesus WAS really angry in the temple.. but it was a righteous anger and the Bible says It is OK to be angry but NOT to sin . ( Or something like that anyway.) Because if that situation WAS him acting out in some fleshly rage, then I would say he DID sin. He wouldn't NEED to add hatred to it.
And absolutely the agony and stress he was under in the garden was very real... sweating great drops of blood?. that is some SERIOUS stress. Obviously he needed strength from the Father and at one point he even asks to take the cup away from him if at all possible. Which of course it wasn't possible and he knew it.
But Dave, if it is true that Jesus COULD have sinned... doesn't that mean that WE too could sin in heaven when we no longer have this old flesh? We will be exactly like Jesus.
I took a two-year course, an overview of the Bible. At our last lesson, our pastor talked about Revelation and the End Times and then swung into what Heaven might be like. He threw out that very idea as a rhetorical question -- will we have free will in heaven and be capable of sinning? If man does have a real choice in following or disobeying God's will, then it seems he either is denied that freedom in eternity or he has the ability to sin even in heaven. Or, is there another possibility? I believe there is.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
I await Dave's response to your question, classyT.
We will be exactly like Jesus... as he is now! That is, when he had the capability/possibility, he also had "this old flesh." Remember that when he rose he was in a glorified body, and at our resurrection, so will we. So the answer is no, we won't have that proclivity any more once we're out of this corruption and have put on incorruption (1 Corinthians 15).Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
Dave - yeah, after thinking about it a little more, it's probably a little awkward that I tried to make a distinction between possibility to sin vs capability to sin... I think you are right. I tried to assert my best explanation for what I see as the distinction between Christ's humanity and his divinity. But at very least we all can recognize that tension. I'd like to also piggy-back on the part you mentioned concerning Christ's frailty as a human being. I quoted from this same article once before but I think this explanation some additional value to this discussion:Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
"Jesus was fully human. He was not a fake. In his humanity, Jesus was just like everybody else, just like you and me, with one difference: our humanity is corrupted by sin; his humanity is perfect in holiness. As a man, Jesus was fully subject to the capacity to sin, and the temptation to sin, and the torment of resisting those temptations, but he was sustained and empowered by his divine nature. Because of his divine and holy nature, Jesus did not sin although sin was a course of action FULLY OPEN TO HIM" (Richard D. Phillips) (emphasis mine).
Do you have a full reference for this article? It looks really interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by jakester
Was Jesus Capable Of Sinning? Thoughts & ActionsQuote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
Jake,Quote:
Originally Posted by jakester
You know what Jake, I actually liked that article. Thanks! :)
Lol... well that's great, Tess... I'm glad ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
Good stuff. Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by jakester
What about “once saved always saved.” Don’t the rules of once saved always saved, and Luther’s rule sin, sin greatly but believe all the greater, apply to Christ?Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
JoeT
I'll answer the Luther part of your question. I'm a lifelong Lutheran and was born on his birthday (but different year). I gots rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
That's not a "rule" established by Luther. (Where on earth did you get the idea that it was?) It was in a private letter to his friend and eventually came to light. We've discussed it here before, on another thread or two. Luther was making the point that God's love and forgiveness are so magnificent and so all-encompassing that we can sin greatly and still be loved and forgiven by Him greatly. It's a rhetorical device called hyperbole. (Just like you might say to your priest, "That was the best homily I ever heard in my life." Yet, we all know you've heard many other terrific homilies and can't really easily rate them in order of best to worst. Hyperbole, Joe.)
And what does it have to do with Christ (as per your comment)??
Grumpy Joe,Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Not sure I completely understand what you are saying... Jesus didn't need to be saved from anything...
I personally believe Jesus couldn't have sinned so I'm not too worried about sinning in heaven. I'm just reasoning it out for those who do believe he could have sinned.
The proposition was whether Christ was free to sin, could have sinned had he chose to do so, or did sin. So it occurred to me that many non-Catholics hold to the concept of “once saved always saved” or “sin greatly but believe all the greater” and thus these concepts would have to stand with the fact that Christ was both man and God. Considering all these concepts co-existing causes a logical dilemma or one or more can’t be true. You might recall you mentioned that as man he was tempted. But, as God, what difference would it have made, why sweat blood? Therefore, which would be wrong, Christ is man, Christ is God, Christ was once saved thus always saved because of faith, or Christ sinned greatly but believed greater?Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
That’s my question to you.
JoeT
Joe,
Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. The Lord Jesus never needed to be saved from anything and if Christ sinned even once... we are all sunk because he wasn't a perfect sacrifice for our sins and he would have been unable to redeem mankind.
I know of NO Christian who believes one should sin greatly and believe greater. That certainly isn't in my Bible. But then my bible also says that my salvation isn't based on my performance either.
Anyone who claimed to be a Christian and thought they could do whatever they wanted to as far as sin... I'd ask them to check their birthcerticate. Because a true Christian, one who loves Christ and understands they are a new creature in Christ, will not WANT to continue to live in sin. They will want to obey the Lord. Of course, we are called "sheep" for a reason.. and we can be stupid and wander from time to time. But a true believer is SEALED with the Holy Spirit. ( I didn't say it... Paul did in Ephesians)
I'm still not sure I am answering your question properly. With me grumpy Joe, you just have to make your questions really simple. Because I'm not brightest chickadee around. Ha
FWIW, I'm not really sure I understand Joe's question, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
This non-Catholic believes neither. Only certain Christians, usually "fundamentalists," believe "once saved always saved." I explained the "sin greatly" thing earlier. It was hyperbole in a private letter, not a "doctrine."Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
I don't see a connection.Quote:
thus these concepts would have to stand with the fact that Christ was both man and God.
Huh? Ummm, neither. (What you smokin', Willis?)Quote:
Christ was once saved thus always saved because of faith, or Christ sinned greatly but believed greater?
ClassyT, Dave and Wondergirl
I think I know what Joe is getting at. Having said that I am sure Joe will correct me if I am wrong.
If Jesus was more man than God then 'sin greatly and believe the greater' seems to apply to those who who suffer from human weaknesses.
If Jesus was more God than man, then as Joe points out, the problem of sin from Jesus' point of view is irrelevant.
All this of course hinges on how we view the identity of Jesus as both a man and a God.
Only Joe knows exactly what he means, but this is my guess.
Regards
Tut
I think I get it now, though as you say only The Shadow knows - uh, only Joe knows for sure. All the info we have says he didn't sin, was without sin, however one wants to word it, so I'm not sure the question is really applicable to Jesus. I don't think anybody really considers him to have been more one than the other, and the exact nature of the blending, or "hypostatic union" as the eggheads call it, is a mystery. We do know he never sinned, didn't need saving or anything like that, and that was part of his qualifications for being able to save US. So while I guess I grasp the question now, I'm not sure it's relevant to the current context.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Then again, I could be full of something other than the Holy Spirit... :o
We will let Willis continue with his smoke.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Luther believed in total predestination and that man had no free will. Luther denies free-will deeming man totally depraved and incapable of turning toward God. He believed that man was a total reprobate completely incapable of moving toward holiness on his own. It was only by God's election that man was saved. (~referenced removed on request~) And too, even in this salvific process Luther held that God chose among us a group of 'elect'. All others were predestined to hell. Luther's views on are termed 'double predestination' that is one is preordained for either salvation or hell. The difference between Luther and Calvin seems to have been In the issue of faith; all that was needed was to 'believe', and salvation was assured.
“God does not save those who merely fancy themselves sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still ( esto peccator et pecca fortiter, sed fortius fide ); and rejoice in Christ, Who is the conqueror of sin, death and the world ; we must sin as long as we are what we are. This life is not the abode of justice, but we look for a new heaven and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness, as Peter says. It suffices that by the riches of the glory of God we have come to know the Lamb, Who taketh away the sin of the world ; sin shall not drag us away from Him, even should we commit fornication or murder thousands and thousands of times a day. Do you think that the price and the ransom paid for our sins by this sublime Lamb is so insignificant? Pray boldly, for you are in truth a very bold sinner” (Luther, letter to Melanchthon, on August 1, 1521.)
Calvin taught God predestined every man as 'elect' unconditionally by the Divine will or as a reprobate predestined to hell by the Divine will. In Calvin's view each individual is either created for mercy or created for wrath. For example it was God's will that Adam sin in Eden receiving reprobation. For Calvin free-will is somewhat of a questionable in Eden but clear that it didn't exist afterward. (Instit. I, 15, 8; III, 23, 8) The Calvinist Confession was revised in 1903 it to include an element of Divine love in salvation recognizing that children who die in infancy are not condemned to hell.
Zwingli believed and taught, "Just as God incited the robber to commit murder, so also He forces the judge to impose the penalty of death on the murderer" (De provid. Dei, in "Opera" ed. Schuler, IV, 113). Likewise Melanchthon taught that Judas was doing the work of God. (cf. Trent, Sess. VI, can. vi, in Denzinger, n. 816)
In the Protestant view moral and ethical dilemmas are established e.g. the 'devil made me do it' or God forbid, 'God made me do it'. And unless we forget, “Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still”
Catholic views of predestination are rather simple. Catholics hold an uncertainty in an omniscience and omnipotent Divine predestination. It's unknown who is 'elect' and who isn't. This was dogmatically taught at the Council of Trent (Sess. VI, can. Xv). This view is best expressed in the verses: 1 Corinthians 4:4; 9:27; 10:12; Philippians 2:12.
I'd be happy to go into more detail, but this isn't the correct thread for the topic. I only wanted to point out that if one holds to the view of 'once saved, always saved' or 'sin, sin greatly but believe all the greater'. Since Christ is both God and man we would expect these rules of faith to apply to Jesus as well. Scripture doesn't seem to support it does it?
JoeT
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:05 PM. |