Could Jesus Sin?

[PaladinValer]

That's heresy, TheMagi...

By the Divine Son becoming Incarnate in no way diminished His Divinity in any way, shape, or form.

 

[TheMagi]

That's heresy, TheMagi...

By the Divine Son becoming Incarnate in no way diminished His Divinity in any way, shape, or form.

Don't worry, I didn't say it diminished, but that he laid it down. That need mean no more than he chose not to avail himself of it - God is free also to do this. And what I have said is not heresy - many great and orthodox theologians the same position
Do you believe that Christ was omnipresent while he was incarnate?

Magi

 

[PaladinValer]

Christ IS omnipresent because He still IS Incarnate. Perhaps not the Human side, but the God side gave up nothing.

Kenosis is simply the "humbling" of God to become a mortal man, doomed to die. He "emptied" His exaltedness to become meek and mild.

Psuedo-kenosis is to say, upon the Incarnation, He gave up certain parts of His Divinity. The problem is that God cannot be anymore than what God is. Just as you cannot actually destroy matter; you can only simple rearrange it, the same goes for God.

 

[Ovda]

Could Jesus sin?
Yes he could. The Bible say that "he was tempted in every way yet He did not sin."

 

[TheMagi]

Christ IS omnipresent because He still IS Incarnate. Perhaps not the Human side, but the God side gave up nothing.

What about omniscience?

Magi

 

[PaladinValer]

Magi, please don't insult my intelligence. What part of 100% God/100% Man do you not understand?

 

[TheMagi]

Magi, please don't insult my intelligence. What part of 100% God/100% Man do you not understand?

None. Nor am I insulting your intelligence: there are those far more intelligent than either of us, upstanding and well regarded conservative, fundamentalist, evangelical, bible-believing preachers and theologians who have asked the same question and agreed with me. There are many older and wiser than us who have held to the words of the confessions and creeds and think the same.

Please - tell me how you read this:

No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Magi

 

[PaladinValer]

Again, this is a form of monophysitism.

TWO NATURES. Jesus the Man may not have known, but Jesus the God did.

 

[TSIBHOD]

If the entire person of Christ is 100% man and 100% God, then all of Him is totally both. Thus, it seems that His mind was 100% God and 100% man. So all of His thoughts were both divine and human. How could He have a divine thought that wasn't human as well, since He is 100% both?

 

[PaladinValer]

Because they are still two entirely different natures. They work together, but that doesn't change the nature of each. The Divine will know everything about the Man, but the Man won't know everything about the Divine.

 

[TheMagi]

Because they are still two entirely different natures. They work together, but that doesn't change the nature of each. The Divine will know everything about the Man, but the Man won't know everything about the Divine.

No. That is to divide Christ. He is 100% God, 100% Man, not God and man cooperating. To state that one part of him knew something another part did not is to divide his mind.
Perhaps you should further explain what you mean by 'nature'.
Magi

 

[PaladinValer]

Sorry, but that is monophysitism you are talking about. Please reread the Formula. Two natures cooperating together in One Person, not One Nature.

 

[TSIBHOD]

How exactly do you define "person," and how do you define "nature"?

 

[PaladinValer]

Good grief...

I am a person. I have one nature; a human one.
Jesus is a person. He has two natures; a human one and a divine one.

 

[TSIBHOD]

I am a person. I have one nature; a human one.
Jesus is a person. He has two natures; a human one and a divine one.

Okay. I was looking more for the actual attributes that come with personhood, and the attributes of "naturehood." Moving on....

I googled a web page on Chalcedonian Christology, and I found an interesting one. Any thoughts on the following excerpt?

The solution to understanding the dual nature of Christ (a seeming contradiction) will not be found in minimizing or redefining Jesus' deity or humanity. The solution lies in the acknowledgment of Jesus' complete, authentic, and genuine humanity; a humanity which imposed limitations (accepted willingly and intentionally) upon the fullness of Christ’s deity so that He could live on the same plane as any other human, sharing in all of their experiences, so that He could relate to man and be a sufficient high priest (Hebrews 2:14-18; 4:14-16; 5:1-9; 7:13-28).

This kenosis explains the functional relationship between the genuine and complete humanity and deity of Christ. The deity was latent (there, but not being utilized) within Christ. In the willing limitation of His deity, living life as a man anointed by the Holy Ghost, the exercise of Jesus' knowledge, power, and presence, as God, was limited. If the fullness of the deity of the Father was in Christ, but the exercise of this deity was willingly limited so that Jesus could live within the limits of every human being, then there is no contradiction. Jesus, because of His complete humanity, is limited; because of His complete deity, is unlimited. Functionally, however, the two natures exist in a fashion where neither is compromised. His two natures exist "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the difference of the natures having been in no wise taken away by reason of the union, but rather the properties of each being preserved....," as the Chalcedonian Creed says. The full ontological existence of God was in Christ (who was also ontologically a complete human being), but the essential properties (omnies) were not being exercised in Him.

[from http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/chalcedon.htm]​

 

[PaladinValer]

No. That's psuedo-kenosis, which is also a heresy.

Part of being God is being the various omnis. Take those away, and you no longer have the fullness of God. If Jesus is truly 100% God, then He is all the omnis.

Part of being Human is having the capacity to sin. Take this away, and you no longer have the fullness of Human Nature. If Jesus is truly 100% Human, then He is capable of sinning.

It is either 100% in both or it isn't the True Messiah.

Side Note: Just because a source claims to be Apostolic doesn't mean it is. For example, there is a Pentecostal denomination that calls itself in its title "Apostolic" yet they are definitely not that at all.

The only churches that have a valid Apostolic Succession and that can be truly considered to be Apostolic (the term is defined by a group keeping the Holy Traditions of the Apostles, mind you) are (at the top of my head):

1. The Vatican Catholic Church
2. The Eastern Orthodox Church
3. The Anglican Church
4. The Utrecht Church
5. The Oriental Orthodox Church
6. Some Lutheran bodies (ELCA included)

 

[TSIBHOD]

No. That's psuedo-kenosis, which is also a heresy.

Part of being God is being the various omnis. Take those away, and you no longer have the fullness of God. If Jesus is truly 100% God, then He is all the omnis.

Part of being Human is having the capacity to sin. Take this away, and you no longer have the fullness of Human Nature. If Jesus is truly 100% Human, then He is capable of sinning.

It is either 100% in both or it isn't the True Messiah.

But that article seems to advocate something slightly different. It says that Jesus had omnipotence, etc., but that He freely chose not to exercise His "omni" abilities. The site says, "The full ontological existence of God was in Christ (who was also ontologically a complete human being), but the essential properties (omnies) were not being exercised in Him."

This seems to be different from the standard kenosis theory, which I believe says that Jesus gave up His "omnies." This article is saying that Jesus didn't give them up, but that He merely did not exercise them. The article purports to have a position consistent with the Chalcedonian Creed. Do you think that the author of the article has misevaluated his position's consistency with the Creed?

Side Note: Just because a source claims to be Apostolic doesn't mean it is. For example, there is a Pentecostal denomination that calls itself in its title "Apostolic" yet they are definitely not that at all.

I am aware that that site does not come from an "Apostolic Succession" church. The site simply proclaims that it teaches "Apostolic" doctrine, I believe.

 

[PaladinValer]

But that article seems to advocate something slightly different. It says that Jesus had omnipotence, etc., but that He freely chose not to exercise His "omni" abilities.

That defies the nature of God however. The very Name of God, YHVH, is an active verb. It means He is an -ing; always in motion. If He is omnipotent, then He is always "omnipotenting."

To deny that He isn't is to deny the true nature of God.

The site says, "The full ontological existence of God was in Christ (who was also ontologically a complete human being), but the essential properties (omnies) were not being exercised in Him."

Not possible if He is 100% God.

This seems to be different from the standard kenosis theory, which I believe says that Jesus gave up His "omnies."

No. That's psuedo-kenosis. True kenosis is simply the humbling of God that He "emptied" Himself and became Man.

This article is saying that Jesus didn't give them up, but that He merely did not exercise them. The article purports to have a position consistent with the Chalcedonian Creed. Do you think that the author of the article has misevaluated his position's consistency with the Creed?

It may be within the Formula, but it does go against not only the Christian understanding of God but the understanding of God by Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and all other theistic faiths.

I am aware that that site does not come from an "Apostolic Succession" church. The site simply proclaims that it teaches "Apostolic" doctrine, I believe.

Not if they deny the true nature of God...

 

[Philip]

But that article seems to advocate something slightly different. It says that Jesus had omnipotence, etc., but that He freely chose not to exercise His "omni" abilities. The site says, "The full ontological existence of God was in Christ (who was also ontologically a complete human being), but the essential properties (omnies) were not being exercised in Him."

I can see a difference here with regards to omnipotence. Could Christ have called down an army of Angels in Gethsemane? Yes. Could He have raised up descendants of Abraham from rocks? Sure. Did He? No.

 

[Blackhawk]

I think for many this question comes down to what is meant that Jesus could not sin. I get the two natures in one person thing. I completely understand that. But was Jesus less than human if he could not have sinned. If there was no way he could have sinned then is he not a human being? So I would state that his human nature had to been able to sin but his divine nature prevented him from doing so. I am not splitting Jesus into two parts but showing how the 2 natures work in one person. This is very akin to Cyril of Alexandria and other church fahters who argue that Jesus' deity too the suffering of Jesus' humanity as its own. So they state that God is impassible and thus cannot suffer but Jesus was able to suffer.

But to clarify a little there was no chance that Jesus would have ever sinned but I think the word can't might disqualify him from being a human because he would have no choice. Thus he would of not been a proper represenative for us.