Could Christ have sinned.

[Doveaman]

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?

“For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh...”... Rom 8:3

The way I see it, Christ had a human nature just like ours (sinful flesh). Anyone with a nature like ours I believe has the ability to sin. But having the ability to sin does not mean he would have sinned. It only means he had the ability to.

“For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.”...Heb 4:15

I am thinking that in order to be tempted to sin one has to have a human nature that appeals to sin, and since Christ was tempted to sin this suggests his human nature appealed to sin.

Of course, Christ did not only have a human nature; he also had a divine nature.

So even though he was tempted in his human nature to sin he was always able to overcome those temptations by the power of his divine nature.

So one might say that because of his divine nature he could not have sinned even though he had the ability to do so and was tempted to do so; his divine nature simply would not allow him to do so despite how appealing sin was to his human nature.

 

[Pythons]

“For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh...”... Rom 8:3

The way I see it, Christ had a human nature just like ours (sinful flesh). Anyone with a nature like ours I believe has the ability to sin. But having the ability to sin does not mean he would have sinned. It only means he had the ability to.

“For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.”...Heb 4:15

I am thinking that in order to be tempted to sin one has to have a human nature that appeals to sin, and since Christ was tempted to sin this suggests his human nature appealed to sin.

Of course, Christ did not only have a human nature; he also had a divine nature.

So even though he was tempted in his human nature to sin he was always able to overcome those temptations by the power of his divine nature.

So one might say that because of his divine nature he could not have sinned even though he had the ability to do so and was tempted to do so; his divine nature simply would not allow him to do so despite how appealing sin was to his human nature.

"In the likeness of sinful flesh" is not synonymous with, "made of sinful flesh".

Christ had a human nature just like our APART from sin, therefore He adopted a body that showed the effects of sin in that Jesus would have pain, be hungry and thirsty, tired, etc.

What Christ did not have was a Birth Sin Nature for the second we step into this area we have another Christ Apart from the One of Scriptures. Jesus did not have ANY un-perfected sin in Him and this is exactly what the Bible calls TEMPTATION from within.

 

[cesty]

I think that it is important to note that when Adam sinned against God it wasn't because he had had a human nature or sinful flesh. He sinned because he chose to sin. It is as simple as that. Even Lucifer was perfect in all his ways until he chose to rebel against God. In other words, these sinned against God because they chose to exercise their free will in a way that did not agree with what God wanted for them.

There is a tendency to justify sin because we have a fallen nature. But we really shouldn't do this because if we can obey God once then why couldn't we obey Him all the time? It is because we choose not to obey Him that we fall into sin. We always have a choice. Its just that we don't always choose wisely.

Some will even go so far as to deny that they have free will in order to justify the sin in their lives; but they are deceived. And the irony of it all is that they have chosen to be deceived because they didn't want to listen to God but to something else instead; it all comes down to what you choose to do with your free will.

 

[Doveaman]

"In the likeness of sinful flesh" is not synonymous with, "made of sinful flesh".

I’m not sure I agree.

“For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh...”... Rom 8:3.

The reason he took on our flesh was to overcome for us what we could not overcome in our own flesh.

He took our sinful flesh and overcame it for us.

Christ had a human nature just like our APART from sin, therefore He adopted a body that showed the effects of sin in that Jesus would have pain, be hungry and thirsty, tired, etc.

What Christ did not have was a Birth Sin Nature for the second we step into this area we have another Christ Apart from the One of Scriptures. Jesus did not have ANY un-perfected sin in Him and this is exactly what the Bible calls TEMPTATION from within.

Well, taking into consideration that his human nature came from the sinful flesh of Mary (I’m not Catholic, sorry ) then one may conclude that the human side of his nature was genetically passed on, so to speak, from the sinful flesh of his mother making his own flesh sinful.

 

[Doveaman]

I think that it is important to note that when Adam sinned against God it wasn't because he had had a human nature or sinful flesh. He sinned because he chose to sin. It is as simple as that. Even Lucifer was perfect in all his ways until he chose to rebel against God. In other words, these sinned against God because they chose to exercise their free will in a way that did not agree with what God wanted for them.

There is a tendency to justify sin because we have a fallen nature. But we really shouldn't do this because if we can obey God once then why couldn't we obey Him all the time? It is because we choose not to obey Him that we fall into sin. We always have a choice. Its just that we don't always choose wisely.

Some will even go so far as to deny that they have free will in order to justify the sin in their lives; but they are deceived. And the irony of it all is that they have chosen to be deceived because they didn't want to listen to God but to something else instead; it all comes down to what you choose to do with your free will.

While there maybe some truth to this, it doesn’t take away from the fact that the flesh cries out for some sin. We may choose not to sin but the sin still remains buried within our flesh weather or not we choose it.

...I am carnal, sold as a slave to sin...

As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin that dwells in me.

I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my sinful flesh...

Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin that dwells in me that does it...

What a wretched man I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?...Rom 7:14-24

 

[catmommy]

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.

So was Jesus. Jesus was a second Adam in the fact that both were perfect humans. They did not have a sinful nature-neither were born in sin or shaped in iniquity. Chirst was tempted by satan. However, he was tempted by things his flesh needed. The bible says Christ was tempted and he did not sin. The sin is not in being tempted, it is giving into temptation.

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.

You have to choose one. Either Christ was tempted as the bible says and did not sin or you have to reject the prinicple that Christ was tempted because you equate temptation with sin. I am not maintaining that Christ had an evil desire. I am maintaining like any other human he had needs that he needed to be met. He had a choice to wait on his Father to give him what he needed or yeild to the easy and instant gratification offered by the devil. He chose the latter.

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.

I was commenting on you saying that the only reason Christ came was to die for our sins. Your statement here proves my point. Christ was also here to show us how to live-part of that was how to resist temptation.

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.

There is no biblical proof for this. God cannot die, yet he did. Are you saying that his body merely did and the God part of him continued to live? If so, why was the body resurected. God cannot bare sin, however, Christ bore our sins on the cross. Or are you saying this didn't happen. How did his divinity stand the sin that his humanity took on during the cross. Where are the biblical scriptures for his dual nature? It is a theory that is unsubstantiated. I just do not believe that theory should be taught as theology. I do not focus on Christ resisting his evil desires. I focus on the fact that God loves me so much that he sent his Son to die for my sins. I also focus on how Christ lived on this earth. I follow his example. I accept that he was tempted because the bible said he was. As stated before temptation is not inherant to a sinful nature. It comes from need and desire. Christ struggled here on earth. He was homeless, hungry, and hated. He also had a task from his Father that was difficult for him to bear. But he did. This is what I focus on.

 

[cesty]

While there maybe some truth to this, it doesn’t take away from the fact that the flesh cries out for some sin. We may choose not to sin but the sin still remains buried within our flesh weather or not we choose it.

...I am carnal, sold as a slave to sin...

As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin that dwells in me.

I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my sinful flesh...

Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin that dwells in me that does it...

What a wretched man I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?...Rom 7:14-24

But Paul also said:

"No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it." (1 Corinthians 10:13 NKJV)
​

Just because Paul had said that he did things that he knew he shouldn't have done and in his mind really didn't want to do, that doesn't mean he was saying that it was impossible for God to keep him from doing those things.

 

[Pythons]

I’m not sure I agree.

“For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh...”... Rom 8:3.

The reason he took on our flesh was to overcome for us what we could not overcome in our own flesh.

Perhaps consider this,

1) that which has been made after the likeness of something
a) a figure, image, likeness, representation
b) likeness i.e. resemblance, such as amounts almost to equality or identity

for what the law was not able to do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, His own Son having sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, did condemn the sin in the flesh,that the righteousness of the law may be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

For those who are according to the flesh, the things of the flesh do mind; and those according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit; for the mind of the flesh [is] death, and the mind of the Spirit -- life and peace;

because the mind of the flesh [is] enmity to God, for to the law of God it doth not subject itself, for neither is it able; and those who are in the flesh are not able to please God.

If Jesus had one split second evil thought go through His mind so that He had to "resist" so that HE would not yield to HIS OWN evil desires in order to prevent HIM from perfecting HIS SIN you can take it to the bank "He" was actually he and he wasn't God.

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.

Evil desire IS "un-perfected SIN". Scripture is saying that "EACH person" IS tempted by their own evil desires. Anyone knows that if you are a dedicated PETA member you could have a million people tempt you to go butcher an animal and eat it and YOU WOULD NOT BE TEMPTED TO DO IT because you did not desire within yourself to do it. No desire for evil = able to be tempted & NOT ABLE TO BE TEMPTED.

He took our sinful flesh and overcame it for us.

Well, taking into consideration that his human nature came from the sinful flesh of Mary (I’m not Catholic, sorry ) then one may conclude that the human side of his nature was genetically passed on, so to speak, from the sinful flesh of his mother making his own flesh sinful.

Christ DID ADOPT a body out of the gate wrecked by sin! That's why He got tired, sick, hurt and everything else related to OUR INFIRMITIES of the body - you and the Seventh-day Adventists are saying that Christ might had a dirty thought or two, thought about telling a lie when the Bible shouts that a person is only tempted when they are drawn away of their own evil desires.

A perfected maggot would be a fly. Evil desires would be a maggots. Jesus, our Incarnated God infested with maggots but He was able to resist His evil desires and never once yielded to His Own Lusts therefore never perfected His SIN.

Begs the question, after the Resurrection when Jesus was taken up in the Same body He walked the earth in, what type of Sacrament did Father God use to remove the maggots?

 

[catmommy]

Pythons, you are the one equating temptation with sin. There is no biblical reference you have given that being tempted is sin. The bible clearly states that God does not tempt us. Satan tempts us. How we respond determines sin. On a diet, I may be tempted to eat a piece of cake. However I do not break my diet until I eat that cake. Satan tempted Christ. No one said that Christ was tempted of himself. You said that. There is no interpretation here-all three Gospels say Christ is tempted. It is the marrying of tempation=sin that is causing the problem. Nobody here is saying that he had a dirty thought ect. The bible is quite clear on how he was tempted. There is no temptation without the possibility. I believe you are talking about probability. Could Human Christ have sinned-yes. Would he have sinned, no.

 

[Pythons]

Pythons, you are the one equating temptation with sin. There is no biblical reference you have given that being tempted is sin. The bible clearly states that God does not tempt us.

I dissected James 1, 15 which identified the actual desire to sin as sin itself. There is no way out of it. Un-perfected sin is still sin. That was Biblical IMHO.

Satan tempts us. How we respond determines sin.

I submit that "each one" is tempted when 'they' are drawn away by their 'own' evil desires.

On a diet, I may be tempted to eat a piece of cake. However I do not break my diet until I eat that cake.

If you were a man and that cake was a woman other then your wife you would be guilty of sin because "you were" tempted. You "were able to be tempted" and "able to be tempted". Jesus was "able to be tempted" and "not able to be tempted".

Satan tempted Christ. No one said that Christ was tempted of himself. You said that.

If you believe Jesus Incarnated "in" sinful flesh and not "in the likeness of sinful flesh" so that He was tempted within himself exactly like you are tempted within yourself that is exactly what you said. So, did Jesus have a "sin nature" or not. Was Jesus born with Original Sin like you and I or not?

There is no interpretation here-all three Gospels say Christ is tempted.

"OF" the Devil. Tempted of the Devil. None of the Gospels teach that Christ was tempted as James 1,15 details that you and I are tempted. i.e. from within our-self, from our own evil desire.

It is the marrying of tempation=sin that is causing the problem. Nobody here is saying that he had a dirty thought ect. The bible is quite clear on how he was tempted. There is no temptation without the possibility. I believe you are talking about probability. Could Human Christ have sinned-yes. Would he have sinned, no.

That looked like a contradiction catmommy. I have made bold and underlined the parts of what you wrote and need a little help in understanding what you mean.

And hey, thank you for talking with me. As for members you appear to be about one of the last who will.

 

[catmommy]

I dissected James 1, 15 which identified the actual desire to sin as sin itself. There is no way out of it. Un-perfected sin is still sin. That was Biblical IMHO.



I don't interpret it that way. Matthew 4:1 says Jesus was lead by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. Jesus also rebukes Satan quoating Deut 6:6 that we should not tempt God. How could we tempt God if temptation was un-perfected sin.



If you were a man and that cake was a woman other then your wife you would be guilty of sin because "you were" tempted.

I believe that that verse is seriously misquoted and misinterpreted. The verse states that a man who looks at a woman to lust after her is commiting sin-not sees a woman and rebukes the lust he feels. To me it is the difference in minding your business and a half naked woman catches a mans attention and a man going to the strip club to enjoy the entertainment. One man is looking for lust, the other rebukes the lust that is presented to him.

If you believe Jesus Incarnated "in" sinful flesh and not "in the likeness of sinful flesh" so that He was tempted within himself exactly like you are tempted within yourself that is exactly what you said. So, did Jesus have a "sin nature" or not. Was Jesus born with Original Sin like you and I or not?

This is where the idea of Jesus being second Adam comes into play. Adam was fully human, but did not posess a fallen nature until after he sinned. Adam was not battling a sinful nature when he ate of the tree. Jesus was made man but he did not have a sinful nature. So the answer is that he was not born of origianal sin. However, you do not need to be born into sin to make the decison to be disobediant. The first beings that fell and Adam and Eve were both created perfect and without sin. Sin is a consequence of free choice. This brings about the possiblility vs probability of Jesus sinning. If you can freely decide the affirmative (not to sin) you can also freely decide the negative (to sin). This deals with possibility. Probability deals with the chance something would happen. Would the Son of God go against his Father?-No. So where there is choice there is always the possiblity of someone making either choice. However, knowing who he was and what was ridding on his mission Jesus would not have sinned.


And hey, thank you for talking with me. As for members you appear to be about one of the last who will.

No problem.

 

[cesty]

And hey, thank you for talking with me. As for members you appear to be about one of the last who will.

I don't think that people in here don't want to talk to you. I think that people are just getting tired of debating.

 

[Pythons]

Welll Pythons--if no one is talking with you maybe it's because the one who was got reported and BANNED for three months! Makes one wonder doesn't it!

It's ok catmommy, I've got the skin of a crocodile and seriously would want to know if something like Honor mentioned happened. If that's true, I regret that has happened. I've never reported anyone no matter what they have said. I'm against it in total as the way I see it if a person can't test what they believe they shouldn't enter into serious discussions in the first place.

Whoever it was that was banned I want them to know I am sorry it happened. It certainly wasn't something I wanted and didn't realize that it happened.

 

[freeindeed2]

I don't think that people in here don't want to talk to you. I think that people are just getting tired of debating.

If people are getting tired of debating they shouldn't come into the 'Discussion and Debate' section of a discussion forum. Just an idea...

In Christ alone...

 

[cesty]

If people are getting tired of debating they shouldn't come into the 'Discussion and Debate' section of a discussion forum. Just an idea...

In Christ alone...

I think that it would be much better if those who have no other purpose in here but to try to get us to throw out our doctrines would just simply stay out of our forum.

If you know that your ideas are not welcome in a certain place then why would you persist in trying to push them on the people who occupy that place? There is a fine line between witnessing and antagonizing. Of course, we do have rules in here; but antagonists can't seem to be respectful of them.

By the way, the debate section shouldn't even exist. It is only here because of a compromise that took place between progressives and traditionals--a dichotomy that shouldn't even be present within the SDA church.

 

[freeindeed2]

I think that it would be much better if those who have no other purpose in here but to try to get us to throw out our doctrines would just simply stay out of our forum.

SDA doctrines have been a controversial issue since the very beginning of the movement. This forum is simply a modern place where those 160 year old discussions and debates take place. You can't erase their history simply by telling people to 'stay out'.

If you know that your ideas are not welcome in a certain place then why would you persist in trying to push them on the people who occupy that place? There is a fine line between witnessing and antagonizing. Of course, we do have rules in here; but antagonists can't seem to be respectful of them.

Truth is not restricted by the man-made walls that are constructed.

By the way, the debate section shouldn't even exist. It is only here because of a compromise that took place between progressives and traditionals--a dichotomy that shouldn't even be present within the SDA church.

Well, that's one philosophy. But it's not the reality. Adventists differ greatly across the board on what they actually believe and how they apply the teachings, doctrines, theology, and belief statements. And promoting a belief such as "Christ/God can/could sin" is going to bring on discussion and debate. There is not one line of thought on most 'beliefs' even within Adventism, and where is your accountability to the whole body of Christ?

I don't agree with the philosophy that it shouldn't even be present or exist. Paul certainly demonstrates his passion for discussing and debating with Greek philosophers, governments, the Jews and Judaizers, religious teachers of the Jewish law, and the Christian church. Jesus clearly refuted those he was in opposition to also.

In Christ alone...

 

[cesty]

I don't agree with the philosophy that it shouldn't even be present or exist. Paul certainly demonstrates his passion for discussing and debating with Greek philosophers, governments, the Jews and Judaizers, religious teachers of the Jewish law, and the Christian church. Jesus clearly refuted those he was in opposition to also.

In Christ alone...

You are taking what I said out of context. What I meant was that debate should not take place among God's people; there should be no factions in the Church. Addressing the objections/questions of unbelievers doesn't fit in this context. Although antagonists should be avoided.

"Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." (1 Corinthians 1:10 NKJV)

"But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned." (Titus 3:9-11 NKJV)



​

 

[Pythons]

Here is a question. "If" Christ failed and sinned He would have lost His Eternal Salvation according to Ellen White. How does this square with an affirmation of the Trinity. Now please realize that I'm not saying SDA's don't believe in the Trinity, No, heavens no, I'm just in need of some help in understanding how this is supported by the Trinity.

 

[cesty]

Here is a question. "If" Christ failed and sinned He would have lost His Eternal Salvation according to Ellen White. How does this square with an affirmation of the Trinity. Now please realize that I'm not saying SDA's don't believe in the Trinity, No, heavens no, I'm just in need of some help in understanding how this is supported by the Trinity.

There would be no such thing as eternal salvation if Christ sinned. Moreover, we wouldn't be able to trust the Scriptures if this had happened. The bottom line here is that Christ didn't sin. Now I have a question for you: Do you believe God is able to keep you from falling into sin; yes or no?

 

[Pythons]

There would be no such thing as eternal salvation if Christ sinned. Moreover, we wouldn't be able to trust the Scriptures if this had happened. The bottom line here is that Christ didn't sin. Now I have a question for you: Do you believe God is able to keep you from falling into sin; yes or no?

That is a very cunning and crafty question. If I say 'no' I would be guilty of rejecting God's Divinity and if I say 'yes' I'm forced to concede. Reminds me of the question; "have you stopped beating your wife"?My answer is that sin exists within us this side of heaven and we will continue to be 'chastised' by God until our individual fight or race is over. The resulting answer is that if we fight the good fight God will not inpute our sin agianst us because we are in Christ and fighting the good fight equates to our actions in life reflecting our faith in Christ.

For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

And of course this one,

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

I take that to mean "at any point" if we say we have no sin we would not be faithful and confess our sin therefore the sin remains and is imputed on us as we have ceased to be son and daughters.So yes, I believe God can keep one from falling into Sin and has in a couple of cases however as for you, me and 'the world', no. My understanding of Salvation does not allow me to assume I will reach a state of total sinlessness this side of heaven.