Could Christ have sinned.

[reddogs]

I came across some people that said that Christians do not believe that Christ could have sinned and failed in his mission on earth. Well then how could he be 'tempted in the desert?"Where does this idea come from?

 

[k4c]

I came across some people that said that Christians do not believe that Christ could have sinned and failed in his mission on earth. Well then how could he be 'tempted in the desert?"Where does this idea come from?

It probably came for the same minds that believe Mary was without sin.

 

[Pythons]

I came across some people that said that Christians do not believe that Christ could have sinned and failed in his mission on earth. Well then how could he be 'tempted in the desert?"Where does this idea come from?

Where did you "come upon" these people and "who" are they? Are you sure you didn't post the argument "those" people gave for why they teach Christ was PECCABLE? I say this because you just quoted the argument used by groups who maintain Christ was peccable. And I mean to a "T".

The only denominations I know of that teach Christ was peccable are those who hail from an Adventist source such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, WWCOG, etc, etc.

The Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist all reject the notion that Christ was peccable (could have sinned) and claim it is heresy.

The Fifth General Council of Constantinople in 553 openly CONDEMNED the teaching that Christ only became impeccable after the Resurrection. This means that every denomination that sprang from Orthodox sources would reject the notion that Christ was Peccable as heresy of the worst sort.

If anyone defends the heretical Theodore of Mopsuestia, who said that

• God the Word is one, while quite another is Christ, who was troubled by the passions of the soul and the desires of human flesh, was gradually separated from that which is inferior, and became better by his progress in good works, and could not be faulted in his way of life, and as a mere man was baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit, and through this baptism received the grace of the holy Spirit and came to deserve sonship and to be adored, in the way that one adores a statue of the Emperor, as if he were God the Word, and that he became after his resurrection immutable in his thoughts and entirely without sin. let him be anathema

It would be interesting if you could direct me to the those individuals who claim that if Christ "couldn't sin" then He failed. I would really like to have the chance to discuss this with them.

 

[reddogs]

Lets get to scripture and see what it says.

1. Matthew 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
2. Mark 1:13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.
3. Luke 4:2 Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.

If Christ could not sin, then there was nothing He could do to prove Satan wrong when he came in the flesh, as temptation was not possible.

Hebrews 2:14-18
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 17Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

 

[Pythons]

Lets get to scripture and see what it says.

1. Matthew 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
2. Mark 1:13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, temptedof Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.
3. Luke 4:2 Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.

If Christ could not sin, then there was nothing He could do to prove Satan wrong when he came in the flesh, as temptation was not possible.

Hebrews 2:14-18
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 17Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Hi Reddogs, I've taken the liberty of making BOLD and coloring red the context of your quoted scriptures above. Read them and let me know what you think.

 

[freeindeed2]

Do you really believe that God can sin? Or do you believe Christ wasn't/isn't God?

In Christ alone...

 

[Pythons]

Do you really believe that God can sin? Or do you believe Christ wasn't/isn't God?

In Christ alone...

If I could change anything about what you wrote above I would; Just add the word "WHY" to the first sentence and replace the first two words of the second sentence with another "WHY".

 

[OntheDL]

Christ the Divine could not have sinned. But Christ the Man was fully capable. Are you denying Christ came in the flesh?

 

[freeindeed2]

Not at all. I would affirm that Christ was never 'not God' and that God cannot sin.

 

[OntheDL]

Not at all. I would affirm that Christ was never 'not God' and that God cannot sin.

Yes, agreed.

However Jesus was fully divine, yet fully human at the same time in the same being. While the divinity could not have sinned, the humanity was fully capable.

When Jesus was tempted, He did not use His own divine power, He relied on the power of the Father.

Hebrews 5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

It was the Father who delivered Him from temptation so He did not sin, not by His own. His own human nature was fully capable of sinning. Notice the following verse.

Hebrews 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

Though He was the Son of God, He had to learn obedience from the things He suffered because He didn't naturally know to obey.

 

[freeindeed2]

Yes, agreed.

However Jesus was fully divine, yet fully human at the same time in the same being. While the divinity could not have sinned, the humanity was fully capable.

When Jesus was tempted, He did not use His own divine power, He relied on the power of the Father.

Hebrews 5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

It was the Father who delivered Him from temptation so He did not sin, not by His own. His own human nature was fully capable of sinning. Notice the following verse.

Hebrews 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

Though He was the Son of God, He had to learn obedience from the things He suffered because He didn't naturally know to obey.

Those texts do not indicate that God/Christ could sin. Christ and the Father were one (just like always). God cannot sin. Suffering is not sinning.

In Christ alone...

 

[Pythons]

Christ the Divine could not have sinned. But Christ the Man was fully capable. Are you denying Christ came in the flesh?

Sacred Scripture speaks of this condition,

A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

It is opposed to those who attempt to tear apart the mystery of the economy into a duality of sons; and

• it expels from the assembly of the priests those who dare to say that the divinity of the Only-begotten is passible, and
• it stands opposed to those who imagine a mixture or confusion between the two natures of Christ

So, following the saintly fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us.
Since we have formulated these things with all possible accuracy and attention, the sacred and universal synod decreed that no one is permitted to produce, or even to write down or compose, any other creed or to think or teach otherwise. As for those who dare either to compose another creed or even to promulgate or teach or hand down another creed for those who wish to convert to a recognition of the truth from Hellenism or from Judaism, or from any kind of heresy at all: if they be bishops or clerics, the bishops are to be deposed from the episcopacy and the clerics from the clergy; if they be monks or layfolk, they are to be anathematised.

The following is what Ellen White taught on the subject,

Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No, the two natures were mysteriously BLENDED in one person--the Man Christ Jesus.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Perhaps we could say that He could have sinned, but He certainly would not have sinned. His perfect obedience to the Law was a necessary condition of His sinlessness. Had He broken the Law at any point, it would have been a sin, which is why He kept the Law. As God, however, sin was contrary to His nature, and He certainly would have no part in it. He was tempted, as Adam was before the fall, (before he sinned) but Christ was to succeed where Adam failed.

 

[Pythons]

Perhaps we could say that He could have sinned, but He certainly would not have sinned. His perfect obedience to the Law was a necessary condition of His sinlessness. Had He broken the Law at any point, it would have been a sin, which is why He kept the Law. As God, however, sin was contrary to His nature, and He certainly would have no part in it. He was tempted, as Adam was before the fall, (before he sinned) but Christ was to succeed where Adam failed.

If He could have sinned He would have been guilty of sin right out of the gate. James 1, 15.

 

[cesty]

If He could have sinned He would have been guilty of sin right out of the gate. James 1, 15.

Did Adam sin? He certainly did. But was he guilty of sin when God had created him? Obviously not. Yet he was capable of making a choice to sin and did just that.

With that said, why is it so hard to believe that Jesus could have chosen to turn from the path of righteousness but didn't? How could He have been tempted to sin if He had never had a choice in the matter? And what sense was there in saying that "He learned obedience by the things which He suffered" if He had no choice but to be obedient (see Hebrews 5:8)? You do believe that Jesus is God, right? How could God learn obedience when He already knows all things (Isa. 46:10)? Moreover, you referred to James 1:15; but didn't you notice verse 13 which says, "God cannot be tempted by evil...?" Yet Jesus, being God, was tempted in all points like as we are, but didn't sin (Heb. 4:15).

"Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him." (Matthew 4:1-11 KJV)

It appears to me that you are ignoring the fact that Jesus was also human, or that you just don't know what that means. It also appears that you don't believe that He had free will. But maybe you do believe that He had free will. If that is the case, then why is it so hard for you to believe that Jesus could have exercised His free will in such a way as to yield to temptation?

Note: I am not saying that Jesus sinned. What I am suggesting is that Jesus was not only Divine; He also had a human nature. Furthermore, Adam was not sinful when God created him; yet he was human. That is, he was created with a human nature, not a sinful one (not prior to the fall anyway). And so Jesus, like Adam, had a human nature, but wasn't sinful. And Just as Adam had freedom of choice, Jesus also had freedom of choice. The difference however, was that Adam chose to sin and Jesus didn't. But both had free will and exercised it to make a choice; you can't make a choice without having more than one option. And if you have more than one option then it is possible for you to choose either one.

 

[reddogs]

Perhaps we could say that He could have sinned, but He certainly would not have sinned. His perfect obedience to the Law was a necessary condition of His sinlessness. Had He broken the Law at any point, it would have been a sin, which is why He kept the Law. As God, however, sin was contrary to His nature, and He certainly would have no part in it. He was tempted, as Adam was before the fall, (before he sinned) but Christ was to succeed where Adam failed.

I think this is the correct direction, as Christ was made flesh like Adam and was tempted just like we are, so is able to succour them (that means us) that are tempted...

Main Entry: 1suc·cor
Pronunciation: \ˈsə-kər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English socour, sucurs (taken as plural), from Anglo-French sucur, sucors, from Medieval Latin succursus, from Latin succurrere to run to the rescue, bring aid, from sub- + currere to run — more at car
Date: 13th century
1 : relief; also : aid, help
2 : something that furnishes relief

Main Entry: 2succor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): suc·cored; suc·cor·ing \ˈsə-k(ə-)riŋ\
Date: 13th century
: to go to the aid of : relieve

 

[catmommy]

Christ had the ability to sin. He was a second Adam- a man that was not born in sin but still retained his free will. Anyone who has free will has the ability to make the wrong decision. Jesus was sent to earth for two reasons. He was to die for the sins of humanity and also show us how to live. If he came without the ability to sin and without true understanding of the human condition, the argument could still be made that God was asking us to do the impossible. By being tempted as we are and having the ability to fall he proves to humanity that we are capable of living as God commands us. I think the theology of Jesus remaining God while being human is confusing and unbiblical. The focus of Jesus on earth is that he was human. Trying to understand how this was achieved and trying to work out this in our human minds creates more problems than it solves.

 

[freeindeed2]

Christ had the ability to sin.

Then, according to your post, God can sin, for Christ was FULLY God.

He was a second Adam- a man that was not born in sin but still retained his free will.

He couldn't have been 'born into sin', he was God.

Anyone who has free will has the ability to make the wrong decision.

Does God have 'free will'? Can he sin?

Jesus was sent to earth for two reasons. He was to die for the sins of humanity and also show us how to live. If he came without the ability to sin and without true understanding of the human condition, the argument could still be made that God was asking us to do the impossible.

He didn't ask us to 'do the impossible'. God asks us to believe in his Son for our salvation.

By being tempted as we are and having the ability to fall he proves to humanity that we are capable of living as God commands us.

Being tempted is not sin. What is it that God can 'fall' to? Are you 'living as God commands' you? If not, why not?

I think the theology of Jesus remaining God while being human is confusing and unbiblical.

The Bible is clear that Jesus IS/WAS/ALWAYS WILL BE/ALWAYS HAS BEEN God is completely biblical.

The focus of Jesus on earth is that he was human.

The focus of Jesus was that God came down to save lost people who could not save themselves. Jesus and the Father were/are ONE. He was the Word in flesh to redeem fallen humanity.

Trying to understand how this was achieved and trying to work out this in our human minds creates more problems than it solves.

We should simply trust that Jesus meant what he said as he revealed his nature in scripture and made humanly audacious claims to be equal with God.

In Christ alone...

 

[catmommy]

Then, according to your post, God can sin, for Christ was FULLY God.


He couldn't have been 'born into sin', he was God.

I said he WAS Not born into sin-just like Adam was not created in sin.

Does God have 'free will'? Can he sin?

Of course God has free will. No God cannot sin. However, Jesus was the Son of Man-a human.


He didn't ask us to 'do the impossible'. God asks us to believe in his Son for our salvation.

And obey him. If only God follow his own rules, than he is asking us to do the impossible. Christ became human to show us that humans relying on the Father are capable of living a life pleasing to God.

Being tempted is not sin. What is it that God can 'fall' to? Are you 'living as God commands' you? If not, why not?

Temptation isn't sin. But temptation implies that you refrain from doing something you want to do. If you do not have an internal battle to prevent the act, you are not tempted.


The Bible is clear that Jesus IS/WAS/ALWAYS WILL BE/ALWAYS HAS BEEN God is completely biblical.

Verses please. The new testement tells us over and over he was the Son of Man. Son of Man is also used in the old testement to refer to a human being.

The focus of Jesus was that God came down to save lost people who could not save themselves. Jesus and the Father were/are ONE. He was the Word in flesh to redeem fallen humanity.

So he did not come to show us the Spirit of the Law? Why did he spend 3.5 years preaching if not to show us how to live?




I have researched the Christ was both God and both Man on earth theory. And that is all that it is. It creates a big problem when Jesus died on the cross if one believes that Christ bore our sins. God cannot have sin attributed to him and if Jesus was both God and Man we have a problem.

 

[Pythons]

Christ had the ability to sin. He was a second Adam- a man that was not born in sin but still retained his free will.

Unless you are prepared to accept that God created, into Adam, evil desires that pulled Adam and Eve internally toward breaking God's Law you can't use this, for Adam was tempted externally - he was not pulled toward this act by his own evil lust to do it.

Anyone who has free will has the ability to make the wrong decision

Adam had free will w/out concupiscence Vs man after Adam has free will w/ concupiscence.

A man is tempted WHEN he is drawn away by HIS own EVIL desires. This "evil" desire is "UN-PERFECTED SIN", it's NOT, as you are suggesting NOT SIN.

and each one is tempted, by his own desires being led away and enticed,

afterward the desire having conceived, doth give birth to sin, and the sin having been perfected, doth bring forth death.

EVERY single Translation I've look at renders it the same. If Christ was tempted within Himself ( like you and I ) the inception of that event, no matter the shortness of duration DEFAULTS that a microscopic "larva" of sin resided in Christ because EACH ONE is tempted by their OWN desires. If you seriously think about what you are saying is that Satan had something in Christ but Christ never FULLY PERFECTED "HIS" SIN.

Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath NOTHING in me

Catmommy, if 1000 people come up and "tempt" you YOU are ONLY tempted to do those things YOU DESIRE or LUST FOR. If you have to RESIST a temptation so you don't YIELD to it that means YOUR OWN evil desire is trying to GET OUT OF YOU AND PERFECT ITSELF. You are maintaining that Satan had something in Christ which equates to Christ having an evil desire but thank Father God Jesus was able to not yield to HIS evil lust and not perfect HIS SIN.

/ temptedThat's why the Bible says related to OUR "infirmities" ( sin's effect on our body - hunger - pain - thirst -wanting to live- etc ) that Christ was tested in ALL ways "APART FROM SIN".

Jesus was sent to earth for two reasons. He was to die for the sins of humanity and also show us how to live. If he came without the ability to sin and without true understanding of the human condition, the argument could still be made that God was asking us to do the impossible.

Jesus is our creator! Does a preacher need to be a prostitue prior to helping a prostitute? Does a doctor need to contract HIV prior to treating someone with HIV? Of course not.

By being tempted as we are and having the ability to fall he proves to humanity that we are capable of living as God commands us.

"Apart from SIN" = OUTSIDE OF SIN and if Christ was ever tempted to tell a lie and needed to resist HIS OWN EVIL DESIRES to do so then Jesus wasn't the Christ.

I think the theology of Jesus remaining God while being human is confusing and unbiblical.

You don't say.

Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you.

Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert.

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.

The focus of Jesus on earth is that he was human. Trying to understand how this was achieved and trying to work out this in our human minds creates more problems than it solves.

Take it to the bank, God became man w/out ceasing to be God. Having such a feverish focus on Jesus having to resist HIS OWN evil desires creates some massive problems theologically IMHO.