[dwashbur]

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

[classyT]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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.

I await Dave's response to your question, classyT.

[dwashbur]

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.

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).

[jakester]

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 - 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:

"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).

[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.

[jakester]

Do you have a full reference for this article? It looks really interesting.

Was Jesus Capable Of Sinning? Thoughts & Actions

[classyT]

Was Jesus Capable Of Sinning? Thoughts & Actions

Jake,

You know what Jake, I actually liked that article. Thanks! :)

[jakester]

Jake,

You know what Jake, I actually liked that article. Thanks! :)

Lol... well that's great, Tess... I'm glad ;)

[dwashbur]

Was Jesus Capable Of Sinning? Thoughts & Actions

Good stuff. Thanks!

[JoeT777]

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.

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?


JoeT

[Wondergirl]

Luther's rule sin, sin greatly but believe all the greater, apply to Christ?

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.

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)??

[classyT]

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?


JoeT

Grumpy Joe,

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.

[JoeT777]

Grumpy Joe,

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?

That’s my question to you.


JoeT

[classyT]

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

[dwashbur]

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.

[Wondergirl]

many non-Catholics hold to the concept of “once saved always saved” or “sin greatly but believe all the greater”

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."

thus these concepts would have to stand with the fact that Christ was both man and God.

I don't see a connection.

Christ was once saved thus always saved because of faith, or Christ sinned greatly but believed greater?

Huh? Ummm, neither. (What you smokin', Willis?)

[TUT317]

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

[dwashbur]

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.

Then again, I could be full of something other than the Holy Spirit... :o

[JoeT777]

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."

I don't see a connection.

Huh? Ummm, neither. (What you smokin', Willis?)

We will let Willis continue with his smoke.

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