Could Jesus Sin?

[TSIBHOD]

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.

I thought that this was a good point, and I've thought about it some. Now I'd like to ask you, Philip, do you mean to say that you agree that Jesus voluntarily did not exercise His omnipotence--not to say that He didn't have it, but that He didn't make use of it, instead allowing Himself to function in the weakness of His human flesh? Or were you going for a different point?

Now, some have made the claim that Jesus did some things in His human nature, and some things in His divine nature. For instance, Jesus is said to have not known the hour of His return, but this is claimed to have been a statement about His human nature, not about His divine nature.

I wonder, however, if this does not create a false dichotomy between Jesus' two natures.

Let us take another example. It is said that Mary must be called Theotokos because that title demonstrates Jesus' deity. Someone objects that Mary was only the mother of Jesus' humanity, not of His diety. Then it is replied that Mary couldn't be mother of just part of Jesus; she had to be mother of all of Him, so she was mother of the entire person of Jesus, not just of one of His natures.

So now I ask, is it proper to consider one of Jesus' natures apart from His other? If Mary cannot be mother of only one part of Jesus, but must be mother of His entire person, then does this not imply that Jesus natures must be spoken of together? We are not supposed to say that Mary is the mother only of Jesus' human nature, because that wrongly divides Jesus. But if we say that it was only Jesus' human nature that did not know the hour of His return, are we not dividing Jesus into two parts in a similar fashion?

The Chalcedonian Formula did say that Jesus two natures are "without division" and "without separation." But if one does something apart from the other, is that not a division, just as it is a division if Mary is mother only of one nature?

 

[Philip]

I thought that this was a good point, and I've thought about it some. Now I'd like to ask you, Philip, do you mean to say that you agree that Jesus voluntarily did not exercise His omnipotence--not to say that He didn't have it, but that He didn't make use of it, instead allowing Himself to function in the weakness of His human flesh?

That's pretty much what I was thinking, but I am not too comfortable about using the term weakness. After all, if I had the power to command a legion of angels, I don't know if I would have strength to give myself up.

Now, some have made the claim that Jesus did some things in His human nature, and some things in His divine nature. For instance, Jesus is said to have not known the hour of His return, but this is claimed to have been a statement about His human nature, not about His divine nature.

I wonder, however, if this does not create a false dichotomy between Jesus' two natures.

I think it does create a false dichotomy. As for Christ not knowing the time of His return, it is possible that we are misusing the term 'omniscient'. I think we can use it to mean that Christ knows all of what was happening throughout creation. Maybe that doesn't help. That statement is a difficult one, but I think it is wrong to Jesus the man didn't know but Jesus God did know. Even if one can argue that God-Jesus did know but man-Jesus didn't, it is not possible to say that only man-Jesus spoke. When He said 'No one knows.', it was Jesus the God-man speaking.

Let us take another example. It is said that Mary must be called Theotokos because that title demonstrates Jesus' deity. Someone objects that Mary was only the mother of Jesus' humanity, not of His diety. Then it is replied that Mary couldn't be mother of just part of Jesus; she had to be mother of all of Him, so she was mother of the entire person of Jesus, not just of one of His natures.

Agreed.

 

[Philip]

The Chalcedonian Formula did say that Jesus two natures are "without division" and "without separation." But if one does something apart from the other, is that not a division, just as it is a division if Mary is mother only of one nature?

I believe you are correct. St Cyril of Jerusalem wrote a letter to Nestorius. The letter was approved by the Third Council and ended with 12 anathemas ('cutting-off'). The first is perhaps the most well known, and you have already touched on it:

1. If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is God in truth, and therefore that the holy virgin is the mother of God (for she bore in a fleshly way the Word of God become flesh,) let him be anathema.​

The fourth seems particularily relevent to what you are saying:

4. If anyone distributes between the two persons or hypostases the expressions used either in the gospels or in the apostolic writings, whether they are used by the holy writers of Christ or by him about himself, and ascribes some to him as to a man, thought of separately from the Word from God, and others, as befitting God, to him as to the Word from God the Father, let him be anathema.​

 

[Quickened]

This is not regarded as a debate, but rather a new point of view so that you may see that if Christ could sin or not, was even really the real question to begin with.

I ask, where are the Scriptures for what everyone said? Where are the passages that agree that God can even sin? God is immutable (Malachi 3:6). But I ask, if just because Jesus is also man, does this mean that He can change? If so, then how can you refute this? For it is written: "Jesus is the same yesterday and today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8). Before anyone can say that Christ can sin, you must first ask if He can change. And do you have any sources where God can change? Exclude the anthropomorphism, e.g., God relented and/or grieved that He even made His creation.

Continue your debates, please. I would like to see peoples views, though I may not agree with them, that is, if they are in conflict with what I believe. Also note that I am not going to debate in this, because if I were to do so, it'd probably take forever.

 

[88Devin07]

He could have, but he didn't. It is just one of the many lovely and wonderful contradictions of God. (It is contradiction, but it is a wonderful, different form of it) He could sin because he was human, yet he couldn't because he was God.
You see, God is infallable, and he is both God and Human. Since he is both, he could reject his Godly side and sin, but that would thus render his being God as false and fallable. But we know God is infallable.
This is showing that God can even come down to Earth, and he proved his infallability. Sure he had the choice of sinning. However, he chose to remain infallable and unsinful.

 

[PaladinValer]

He could have, but he didn't. It is just one of the many lovely and wonderful contradictions of God. (It is contradiction, but it is a wonderful, different form of it) He could sin because he was human, yet he couldn't because he was God.

This is a (probable, as the language is very confusing) continuation of monophysitism...

Do not use "He" without clarifying who "He" is. Is He God? Is He the Father? The Son? Jesus? Yes, there is a time when the Son wasn't Jesus; it only happened 4 bce though it continues on today.

You see, God is infallable, and he is both God and Human.

Major problems here. You are confusing the Blessed Trinity. The Father is not the Son; He has no body. The Holy Spirit is not the Son; He has no body either. Only the Son has a body. God as a whole is a complete Mystery.

Since he is both, he could reject his Godly side and sin, but that would thus render his being God as false and fallable.

No He couldn't. This is now monothelitism; the belief that Jesus only has one will. God of Jesus is incapable of sinning, period.

Sure he had the choice of sinning. However, he chose to remain infallable and unsinful.

Only the Human nature had the choice of sinning, but it cooperated willfully with the Divine will, whose nature hadn't the capability of sinning. Though the two are one in terms of one person and are "indestinguishable," they are still separate. It is a Mystery of Faith.

 

[88Devin07]

Paladin, for one, I refuse to debate with you because I have said before that I haven't come on here to debate. So if you want a debate, you won't get one!

Next, You misread my post. I NEVER said Jesus had only one will...

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are in no way seperate, they are all one.

remember the verse...

Hear oh Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is one.

Jesus was still the Father and Holy Spirit while on Earth. But remember that God is omnipresent. He is everywhere at once. So while he was still in the earthly body. He was still everywhere.

Also, next time, don't use those words like monothelitism or monophytism, explain what they actually are. some of us aren't students or Bible Scholars. I choose to gain in faith by working on my spirituality and relationship to Christ, and through the Holy Spirit I will learn more about Christ and his plan.

So please, next time you use words like that, explain what they mean.

Lastly (and again) i'm not here to debate, I just wanted to express my beliefs and now am just trying (my best) to explain them to you.

 

[Philip]

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are in no way seperate, they are all one.

They most certainly are separate and disctinct Persons united in one Essence.

remember the verse...

Hear oh Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is one.

Yes, the Lord is 'echâd, three Persons united in one Essence.

Jesus was still the Father and Holy Spirit while on Earth.

Absolutely not. The Son is neither the Father nor the Spirit.

Also, next time, don't use those words like monothelitism or monophytism, explain what they actually are. some of us aren't students or Bible Scholars.

Might I recommend www.google.com and www.dictionary.com ?

Monothelitism is the belief that Christ had one will (usually divine). It is a heretical denial of the orthodox belief that Christ has two wills, one divine and one human.

Monophytism is the belief that Christ had only one nature. It is a heretical denial of the orthodox belief of the Hypostatic Union in Christ.

 

[88Devin07]

Philip, I didn't come on here to debate. I just said that.

 

[Philip]

Philip, I didn't come on here to debate. I just said that.

Why do you presume that I am debating you? Is it not possible that my intent is the same as yours:

Lastly (and again) i'm not here to debate, I just wanted to express my beliefs and now am just trying (my best) to explain them to you.

 

[88Devin07]

Thats true, but I just didn't want to debate about my views. This is the sentence that led me to believe you were trying to debate with me...

Absolutely not. The Son is neither the Father nor the Spirit.

Since you quoted me, I figured you were just challenging me, but I'm not someone who likes debating. So I figured you wanted a debate.

 

[Quickened]

Jesus was still the Father and Holy Spirit while on Earth. But remember that God is omnipresent. He is everywhere at once. So while he was still in the earthly body. He was still everywhere.

To say this is to express the belief of Sabellianism (Modalism). In other words, you're calling the Son the Father and the Holy Spirit. This would also be to say that the Father was crucified, not the Son. According to the Trinity, the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Son, and the Father and Son are not the Holy Spirit. Sabellianism is a Trinitarian heresy

 

[PaladinValer]

Paladin, for one, I refuse to debate with you because I have said before that I haven't come on here to debate. So if you want a debate, you won't get one!

And welcome to a public board where debate is inevitable. If this isn't your forte, perhaps you should think about either accepting some critique (as you'll always get it, here on CF and throughout life) or avoiding contact entirely. Debate is a part of life. It isn't always pretty, but it is unavoidable.

Next, You misread my post. I NEVER said Jesus had only one will...

It was however implied.

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are in no way seperate, they are all one.

This is heresy. The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit. The Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. Yet all are equally God. You are suggesting sabellianism.

Hear oh Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is one.

So? You can believe this without modalism.

Jesus was still the Father and Holy Spirit while on Earth.

While the wholeness of God was in Jesus, He was the Incarnation of God the Son, not God the Father or God the Holy Spirit.

But remember that God is omnipresent. He is everywhere at once. So while he was still in the earthly body. He was still everywhere.

You seem to be suggesting a form of possession. He (God the Son) wasn't "in" an Earthly body; He was Incarnated as an Earthly body; a true Man.

Also, next time, don't use those words like monothelitism or monophytism, explain what they actually are. some of us aren't students or Bible Scholars.

It isn't that hard to go to www.wikipedia.com and type it in. A lot of what we learn isn't taught but "self-taught."

 

[88Devin07]

Paladin, I happen to know we have more than just 1 forumer that agrees with me... They are all one.

Also Paladin, This may be a forum, but I CAN avoid a debate. If I just ask for no debating from my posts, then no one will debate. If they do, I'll just have my thread closed.

Paladin, it isn't heresy because it doesn't contradict scripture.

You ought to start watching what you say Paladin. People don't appreciate you always dogging their views (like me). Neither of us agree with the other on anything. So if you don't like my views, then just stay away from my posts.

Is it so wrong that humans make mistakes? I may be in a different stage of spirituality than you, but God will reveal himself to me no matter what.

BTW, I think you need to watch more of Joel Osteen. One of his recent sermons illustrated that some ppl are in different spiritual levels than others and we do n't have the right to bash one another for beliefs.

You just have to accept that my views are different from you.

The Son is the Father, The Father is the Son, The Father is the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is the Father, the Holy Spirit is the Son. Yet they are all "seperate" (but not literally, figuratively and spiritually).

And I'm not the only one on this forum that holds this view. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit don't ever act seperately, they act together. While on the Cross, the Son was filled with the Holy Spirit and was still the Father at the same time. While the Holy Spirit was in the hearts of the Apostles, The Son and Father was in their hearts too... (Remember Jesus said that he is in us, he is in us with the Holy Spirit)

The Father isn't the only omnipresent and omniscient one, they are all that. The Father, the Son and Holy Spirit are all omnipresent and omniscient.

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit cannot act without each other and are in each other all the time.

Remember though, I'm not going to debate with you Paladin. You aren't changing your view, and i'm not changing mine unless yours is more supported by scripture. I'm just simply telling you what I believe.

 

[Blackhawk]

I believe you are correct. St Cyril of Jerusalem wrote a letter to Nestorius. The letter was approved by the Third Council and ended with 12 anathemas ('cutting-off'). The first is perhaps the most well known, and you have already touched on it:

1. If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is God in truth, and therefore that the holy virgin is the mother of God (for she bore in a fleshly way the Word of God become flesh,) let him be anathema.
​

The fourth seems particularily relevent to what you are saying:

4. If anyone distributes between the two persons or hypostases the expressions used either in the gospels or in the apostolic writings, whether they are used by the holy writers of Christ or by him about himself, and ascribes some to him as to a man, thought of separately from the Word from God, and others, as befitting God, to him as to the Word from God the Father, let him be anathema.
​

It was Cyril of Alexandria but no big deal. But I think one would be surprised to find out that Cyril stated that Jesus suffered in his humanity and his deity took that suffering as his own. The thing that Nestorius was doing was saying that there was two persons. Cyril argued that there were two natures in one person. Like Augustine he argued that somethings were of only one nature. For instance Jesus' divinity never got hungry or thirsty. But since both natures were in one person the divine nature took on the suffering of the human nature as its own. So Jesus Christ suffered but not in his divine nature per se. So Cyril was able to keep God impassible while having Jesus suffer for the sins of the world.

 

[Philip]

It was Cyril of Alexandria but no big deal.

You are correct.

But since both natures were in one person the divine nature took on the suffering of the human nature as its own. So Jesus Christ suffered but not in his divine nature per se. So Cyril was able to keep God impassible while having Jesus suffer for the sins of the world.

I am not entirely sure what you are saying. If you mean that the Divine nature is itself unable to suffer, and the suffering was only possible because of the hypostatic union with the human nature, I can agree. If you mean that Divine nature did not suffer, St Cyril addressed this in his twelfth anathema:

12. If anyone does not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh and was crucified in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh and became the first born of the dead, although as God he is life and life-giving, let him be anathema.​

 

[michaeldimmickjr]

I'm suprised that no one has provided this scripture:

2 Corinthians 5:21

For him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. WEB
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Him who knew no sin he made 'to be' sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him.[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] ASV[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
For him who had no knowledge of sin God made to be sin for us; so that we might become the righteousness of God in him.[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] BBE[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Him who knew not sin he has made sin for us, that we might become God's righteousness in him.[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] DBY[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] KJV[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] WBS[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
He has made Him who knew nothing of sin to be sin for us, in order that in Him we may become the righteousness of God.[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] WEY[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
for him who did not know sin, in our behalf He did make sin, that we may become the righteousness of God in him. [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]YLT[/font]

Jesus became sin for us. He knew no sin. He became but didn't know. Instead of meditating on the what ifs, meditate on what the Scripture tells us. A legion of councils and other men could talk to me until they're blue in the face, if it can not be backed up by scripture, it must be discounted.

Your Brother in Christ,

Michael

 

[Simonline]

From another thread, I bring this quotation:


Can you back up this statement?

I would say that Jesus was not capable of sinning. 1 John 3:9a, in Paladin's favorite NRSV, says, "Those who have been born of God do not sin, because God's seed abides in them."

Now, I'm going to run with an assumption that when Scripture talks of "those who have been born of God," then whatever it says about "those" is applicable to Jesus. Let me continue with that verse. It says that "they [those who have been born of God] cannot sin, because they have been born of God."

My conclusion is that Jesus cannot sin, nor could He have, nor will He ever be able to.

Your problem is your use of 'Jesus' instead of 'the Messiah'. The Messiah has two natures. One is the Nature of the Infinite Divine Creator , the other is the nature of a finite human creature. Together they make up the ONE PERSON who is the Messiah.

Whilst the Divine Nature is impervious to temptation (Jas.1:13), the human nature isn't (Heb.4:15) and therefore the possibility of succumbing to sin is real. The Evil One knew this and having decided that if the Messiah had a 'weak spot' then it would be his human nature he set about tempting him accordingly.

If the Messiah was absolutely impervious both to temptation and sin (in both natures) then he was not like us in every way and therefore invalid as both our High Priest and sacrifice (Heb.2:14-18; 4:15).

Simonline.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Paladin--you are advocating that Christ was impeccable and unable to sin, right?

 

[PaladinValer]

Read all my posts...it can be somewhat confusing (as it is a complex topic), but you'll see that I agree with the orthodox position