[Wondergirl]

(Cf. HARTMANN GRISAR, SJ.

"HARTMANN GRISAR" had his own agenda and an axe to grind. I stopped reading your thread as soon as I saw his name. I would not give any credence to anything he wrote about Luther.

[JoeT777]

"HARTMANN GRISAR" had his own agenda and an axe to grind.

How so? Besides I didn't quote Grisar, I quoted Luther.

JoeT

[Wondergirl]

How so? Besides I didn't quote Grisar, I quoted Luther.

I said I STOPPED READING as soon as I saw Grisar's name. I didn't say you quoted him.

[JoeT777]

I said I STOPPED READING as soon as I saw Grisar's name. I didn't say you quoted him.

Ok, so you can't read?

[Wondergirl]

Ok, so you can't read?

Insults don't become you. I thought you were better than that.

[JoeT777]

Insults don't become you. I thought you were better than that.

It wasn't an insult. Bad grammar remember.

[Wondergirl]

It wasn't an insult. Bad grammar remember.

Actually it wasn't bad grammar, but a mishmash of words that made no sense. And it was an obvious truth (which I quoted) and not an insult.

Now, if you would remove Grisar from your argument, since he has nothing important to say about the current discussion regarding Jesus being able to sin, I will be glad to respond. I cannot imagine how Grisar's opinion of Luther would add to this thread.

[TUT317]

It may be possible to defend ClassyT's claim that it was impossible for Jesus to sin.

Consider the claim that no power on heaven or earth can render a false statement true. This statement is a consequence of logic rather than an empirical fact. 'Jesus cannot sin' was true a thousand years before he was born and is still true three thousand years after his death.

There is no denying that in terms of empiricism Jesus could have sinned in the same way as the rest of us. This is because he was in human form and subject to the laws of cause and effect. However, when we think of him being removed from the physical world and consider the truth of the statement,' Jesus cannot sin' as a logical statement then the past, present and future do not come into play.

It is a little bit like saying that 2+2=4 was true yesterday, the day before that and the day before that. It will be true tomorrow as well.

Adopting such a position has implications for fatalism. Interestingly enough this brings us back to Joe's statement about Calvin, Luther and predestination.

Tut

[JoeT777]

It may be possible to defend ClassyT's claim that it was impossible for Jesus to sin.

If the 'possibility' didn't exist then He wasn't a man, He would have been something more than man. Right?

JoeT

[dwashbur]

If the 'possibility' didn't exist then He wasn't a man, He would have been something more than man. Right?

JoeT

This conundrum is pretty much what led to the Docetic heresy in the first couple of centuries after Jesus. This view said he wasn't really human, but only appeared to be (hence the name, Greek DOKEO, "seem") or was clothed in a human form, which he shed at the crucifixion. Ultimately the church at large rejected it based on Paul's statements that he truly was a man, Hebrews' statement that he was tempted just like we are, etc. To me, this is yet again an instance when we're trying to comprehend something that's far beyond our finite minds.

[TUT317]

If the 'possibility' didn't exist then He wasn't a man, He would have been something more than man. Right?

JoeT

Good observation Joe. In the final analysis I think you are correct.

When we consider possibility we often find it difficult to separate it from probability.

Basically probability deals with events which are not predetermined. For example, if we toss a coin many times we will end up with a definite statistical pattern. i.e. very close to 50/50.

It is possible to argue that possibility involves a degree of belief which could be seen as something which exists 'on top of probability'.

When we are talking about Jesus as a man, or any other person for that matter we are talking about a variety of available knowledge which goes beyond probability.

I guess in the end ClassyT cannot expect a definite answer in terms of truth or falsity.

Regards Tut

[JoeT777]

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.

My point was that Christ was both God and man. Therefore what can be scripturally applied to man can be applied to Christ. Beyond bringing the Kingdom of God to us, his life is a testament to man achieving holiness through his works in faith.

In regard to sin we can apply temptation to the man that is Christ. Christ speaks to temptations, “you are they who have continued with me in my temptations , i.e. in spite of temptations. Christ knows how man is tempted, “Watch and pray that you enter not into temptation” (Matt 26:41). In the vein of Why should we watch if we are saved simply by believing. And once we believe how could we be tempted, that is being ‘always saved’? And once saved why would the Lord need to know how to deliver the “godly from temptations” (2 Peter 2:9)? We know that He was tempted as every man is tempted.

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.

Your right our salvation isn’t based on performance. Rather we preserve working out our salvation with fear and trembling. If salvation were assured as some believe then hope has been realized, and we have no further need of hope. Yet we’re told, “we are saved by hope!” (Rom 8:23-24)

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 birth certificate.

What does the birth certificate have to do with it? Is the suggestion that we are born Christian?

JoeT

[JoeT777]

This conundrum is pretty much what led to the Docetic heresy in the first couple of centuries after Jesus. This view said he wasn't really human, but only appeared to be (hence the name, Greek DOKEO, "seem") or was clothed in a human form, which he shed at the crucifixion. Ultimately the church at large rejected it based on Paul's statements that he truly was a man, Hebrews' statement that he was tempted just like we are, etc. To me, this is yet again an instance when we're trying to comprehend something that's far beyond our finite minds.

Docetism belongs to Gnosticism; it’s not properly a Christian heresy. Nevertheless, my suggestion was somewhat opposite. I’m suggesting that Christ was as ‘human’ as you and I are. The 'man' that is Christ has the same propensity for error and sin as you and I do. I almost hate to say this, but many good men hung on the cross before Christ and many good men hung on the cross after Christ. It wasn’t the fact that he was crucified that makes Christ different, it’s that he was the perfect Pasch. Not just the holocaust, but the entire Paschal feast. Christ has the same free-will to choose; to cooperate with God’s will as all men do. As ClassyT noted, this is why he sweats blood in the garden. The temptations in Christ’s garden of life are proportionately greater than those in most men. Christ is the Divine example that men have the capacity to cooperate with the will of God becoming blessed. Which brings us to the conclusion that ‘once saved always saved’ would be in conflict with the example given in Christ. Christ didn’t sin because he freely cooperated with the will of God, not because he was ‘saved’.

JoeT

[dwashbur]

Docetism belongs to Gnosticism; it’s not properly a Christian heresy.

Gnosticism was a Christian heresy. It grew out of a blending of Christianity with certain Greek forms of mysticism.

Nevertheless, my suggestion was somewhat opposite. I’m suggesting that Christ was as ‘human’ as you and I are. The 'man' that is Christ has the same propensity for error and sin as you and I do.

I don't think anybody is disputing that. The question has to do more with the union of human and divine natures. In one sense, he wasn't as human as we, because a) he didn't have a human father and b) he was also fully God. Hence the conundrum.

Christ didn’t sin because he freely cooperated with the will of God, not because he was ‘saved’.

I haven't seen anybody say otherwise.

[dwashbur]

My point was that Christ was both God and man. Therefore what can be scripturally applied to man can be applied to Christ.

That does not follow, because as you said, he's also God. That's going to limit somewhat the things about man that can be applied to him. Whether you intend to or not (and I don't claim to know), you're basically saying his divine nature didn't affect him at all and it was only his humanity that was active. That's simply not the case.

[TUT317]

Gnosticism was a Christian heresy. It grew out of a blending of Christianity with certain Greek forms of mysticism.



I don't think anybody is disputing that. The question has to do more with the union of human and divine natures. In one sense, he wasn't as human as we, because a) he didn't have a human father and b) he was also fully God. Hence the conundrum.



I haven't seen anybody say otherwise.

It would have been a lot simpler if Jesus was a divine being in human form. If this were the case then ClassyT proposition that, 'Jesus cannot sin' would be correct. It would be logically impossible for him to have done so.

This position beings about problems when we come to consider free will. Basically, Jesus not being able to sin means that he would not have free will.

As stated before this position also has implication for fatalism which would be rejected by most Christian denominations.

Unfortunately for ClassyT her idea is difficult to sustain from a Christian point of view.


Regards

Tut

[TUT317]

As stated before this position also has implication for fatalism which would be rejected by most Christian denominations.

Unfortunately for ClassyT her idea is difficult to sustain from a Christian point of view.


Regards

Tut

A correction is in order here.

Fatalism has many things in common with predestination. Perhaps I should have said fatalism would be rejected by many Christian denominations.

Tut

[JoeT777]

Gnosticism was a Christian heresy. It grew out of a blending of Christianity with certain Greek forms of mysticism.

It would seem to me to call it a heresy would be to elevate Gnosticism to the level of Christianity. That would be like calling Buddhism a Christian heresy because they have similar morals and ethics as Christians.

I don't think anybody is disputing that. The question has to do more with the union of human and divine natures. In one sense, he wasn't as human as we, because a) he didn't have a human father and b) he was also fully God. Hence the conundrum.

Conundrum it may be, nevertheless if we assign a Divinity to any part of Christ’s resistance to temptations and unyielding scruples then what good would His sacrifice be? We could always claim fatalism. Man could never fulfill the call to be Christ like, to be adopted sons of God – there is no part of man that fits the description of Divinity.

JoeT

[JoeT777]

It would have been a lot simpler if Jesus was a divine being in human form. If this were the case then ClassyT proposition that, 'Jesus cannot sin' would be correct. It would be logically impossible for him to have done so.

This position beings about problems when we come to consider free will. Basically, Jesus not being able to sin means that he would not have free will.

As stated before this position also has implication for fatalism which would be rejected by most Christian denominations.

Unfortunately for ClassyT her idea is difficult to sustain from a Christian point of view.


Regards

Tut

I agree.

[JoeT777]

That does not follow, because as you said, he's also God. That's going to limit somewhat the things about man that can be applied to him. Whether you intend to or not (and I don't claim to know), you're basically saying his divine nature didn't affect him at all and it was only his humanity that was active. That's simply not the case.

I can't make any claim to know what part Christ’s Divinity played in the human part of Christ’s nature, but it would seem to me if Christ is to be the ‘perfect’ sacrifice He needs to be a perfect man ~ not a perfect God, a perfect God already exists.

This seems to be the view of St. Thomas:

our Lord says (Luke 22:42): "Father, if Thou wilt, remove this chalice from Me. But yet not My will but Thine be done." And Ambrose, quoting this to the Emperor Gratian (De Fide ii, 7) says: "As He assumed my will, He assumed my sorrow;" and on Luke 22:42 he says: "His will, He refers to the Man--the Father's, to the Godhead. For the will of man is temporal, and the will of the Godhead eternal." St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Tertia Pars , 18, 1

JoeT